|
Would it be so wrong to just bomb the poo poo out of ghaddafiis next known location that fits into some kind of acceptable loss equation. Would we have to actually occupy and try to micromanage the democratic stuff?? I think if we just did the wet work and left the perceptions wouldn't so bad... Hes an insane person killing his people. There is plenty of evidence to show ghadaffi was far beyond out of control, especially in those first couple weeks. Why is the nation building part including in the intervention part?
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 06:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
sweeptheleg posted:Would it be so wrong to just bomb the poo poo out of ghaddafiis next known location that fits into some kind of acceptable loss equation. Because going in, decapitating the government, and then saying "Hey guys, your welcome. Now clean up." is even worse then the alternative. The situation here is a bit different though because there is already an organized opposition faction.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 06:29
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:Because going in, decapitating the government, and then saying "Hey guys, your welcome. Now clean up." is even worse then the alternative. The situation here is a bit different though because there is already an organized opposition faction. This is kind of what happened in Iraq and Afghanistan, and why the US got quagmired in a never ending conflict in both regions. It turns out that people don't actually appreciate it very much. As you say, the situation is different because there is an organized opposition, but they've stated that the only foreign aid they want is the establishment of a no fly zone to protect them from Gaddafi's air strikes. I think they feel confident enough in their numbers advantage to win a land war, but they have no way of dealing with planes, so until a NFZ goes up they're forced to just dig in and wait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 06:31
|
|
|
We barely know anything about the Libyan opposition other than the fact that they want us to take out Gaddafi for them. Which is a nice sentiment, but generally you want to know something about the people you're leading into power. In the Kosovo bombing campaign, we thought the KLA were a swell group of people (even though they had been considered a terrorist group by many experts). Upon further study after the war it turned out we had sided with a group of thugs who might even be into organ theft. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_theft_in_Kosovo New Division fucked around with this message at 06:40 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 06:38
|
|
|
Space Monster posted:Because going in, decapitating the government, and then saying "Hey guys, your welcome. Now clean up." is even worse then the alternative. The situation here is a bit different though because there is already an organized opposition faction. What you are saying is understandable, but I wouldn't think that there would be much of a government to decapitate at this point. Not only does the most of the international community think the administration is illegitimate but so do most of its people. The only reason the guy has an iota of power is due to his use of the military to murder his own citizens. Even if his tanks roll into Benghazi tomorrow, this won't be a simple matter of forgive and forget. That being said, I doubt toppling Qaddafi in such a manner would really have the desirable outcome.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 07:18
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:I think they feel confident enough in their numbers advantage to win a land war, but they have no way of dealing with planes, so until a NFZ goes up they're forced to just dig in and wait. I think people have been overestimating the importance of airpower here, even without air support I doubt the outcome would've been much different. Q-fi doesn't have much of an air force to begin with, and the opposition doesn't really have any large concentrated armor divisions to target anyway. Other than bombing ammo dumps (which have probably been raided and cleaned out) he's not going to have many easy to hit targets that will make significant dents in the opposition. Most of the battles have taken place in city streets. There's no reason to expend fuel and cause wear and tear on a jet to target a building or two when you can lob cheap artillery shells in there just as easy. He obviously doesn't care much about collateral damage. Helicopters are more effective than planes admittedly, but ultimately tanks and artillery are the real threats. If you want to flatten a city the only realistic way to do it in short order is to bombard it with armor. If a no fly zone is established with strict rules against engaging targets that don't pose an immediate threat to NATO aircraft, I don't see much of a reason pro-Qaddafi forces can't keep pushing forward with ground forces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 07:28
|
|
|
Narmi posted:For anyone interested, the UNSC draft resolution they're going to vote on can be read here. Key points quote:3. Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians; quote:
So it's basically a blanket authorization if approved.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 08:48
|
|
|
Simtex posted:Quick informal poll: Regardless of your support or opposition, do you think positive perceptions of the US will increase or decrease in the Arab world if a no fly zone is established AND strikes are made against forces approaching Benghazi (though no actual boots on the ground)? It entirely depends if any air strikes manage to avoid civilian casualties, and how those casualties are presented by the press in the Arab world. Here's the live blogs for March 17th: LibyaFeb17.com AJE Guardian There's two major things to look out for today. First the previously mentioned UN resolution which would no only allow a no fly zone, but also pretty much allow Gaddafi's troops to be attacked directly, so it would be a massive boost to the rebels. Second you have threats from Gaddafi that today is going to be a very important day for his army, and combined with the threats made to the citizens of Benghazi, the large troop build up, and Saif's belief it would be all over in 48 hours (36 hours ago) you might see Gaddafi trying to finish this before the UN can vote. I've also read a couple of reports of Libyan government officals becoming increasingly alarmed at America's rapid change in stance, which will hopefully lead to more rats deserting Gaddafi's sinking ship. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 09:54 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 09:51
|
|
|
I can't help escape the feeling that the US is using Libya to make up for their failure to take any action against Gulf States when they start shooting protesters. Iyad El Baghdadi, who has been doing a lot of reports about Libya, is currently Tweeting a lot about the situation with journalists in Libya, and the situation with the UN Security Council. He's pointed out that China and Russia have both used their veto power twice, and only in instances where it's involved their direct sphere of influence. He's also saying that recent media blitz by Gaddafi and son was an attempt to convince the international community that things were as good as over in Libya, and to convince them that a UN resolution at this stage would be pointless, and potentially damaging for their relationship with a victorious Gaddafi family. However, they've been unable to provide any evidence of their claimed successes apart from clearly staged photo ops, and they've failed to convince anyone. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 10:55 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 10:44
|
|
|
Is it not kind of weird that after spending the last few weeks wringing their hands and fence-sitting while Britain and France were calling for a NFZ the US are suddenly not only in favour of one but also of taking steps beyond that? Why the sudden change of plan? Not saying I don't think it's a good thing, but it just strikes me as kind of out of the blue (then again, maybe there've been hints being dropped that I've missed).
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 11:21
|
|
|
There were rumours of a deal between the US and Gulf States to keep their nose out of the trouble in the Gulf States, and the Gulf States giving support to the action in Libya. It's also become clear that the rebels aren't winning this thing, and Gaddafi isn't going to be a friendly influence on the edge of Europe anymore, so he needs to go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 11:23
|
|
|
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12769993 Doesn't say anything different from what we have heard in the last 24 hours, but it seems to be confirming at least that the rebels have some armor and choppers. The video focuses on the rebels while article is mainly about the no-fly zone and Ghaddafi's statements.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 11:31
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:There were rumours of a deal between the US and Gulf States to keep their nose out of the trouble in the Gulf States, and the Gulf States giving support to the action in Libya. It's also become clear that the rebels aren't winning this thing, and Gaddafi isn't going to be a friendly influence on the edge of Europe anymore, so he needs to go. Ah, that puts a new angle on things. Just reading the Guardian's article on the resolution, I see that Germany's also backing it which again seems somewhat surprising since on Tuesday the German foreign minister supposedly made it clear that Germany wouldn't support military intervention and was 'deeply sceptical' about a NFZ. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/17/libya-air-strikes-urged-us-un link if anyone's interested.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 11:32
|
|
|
This was posted on the Guardian live blog about the situation in the East:quote:A resident in Ajdabiya says the town is besieged by regime forces and has been hit by hours of air strikes, AP reports. It quotes an opposition spokesman, Mustafa Gheriani, as saying that Benghazi is "armed to the teeth." So it sounds like the rebels have brought out their heavy weaponary to take on Gaddafi's forces, making Saif's claims that Benghazi will fall within the next 12 hours seem absurd. Benghazi is also a city with 600k+ people, and much larger than Ajdabiya, so fighting their will be fierce and extremely costly to Gaddafi's forces.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 11:35
|
|
|
quote:He says this is the first time defecting army units have faced government forces Someone said it earlier, but have things up to now just been a feint to overstretch gadaffi's supply lines or something? Or has it just been the more overenthusiastic rebels running around with AKs, and these guys just waiting? I'm confused.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 12:28
|
|
|
It could be they pulled back from Ras Lanuf because it was harder to defend, and they couldn't secure a supply line there while Gaddafi forces could use aircraft to attack their forces. Also if you compare Ras Lanuf to Ajdabiya you'll see Ras Lanuf is far more difficult to defend, lots of long straight streets in a grid pattern, and low density of building, compared to Ajdabiya which lots of tiny streets, and is densely packed with buildings. That reduces the effectiveness of tanks and armoured vehicles dramatically. Yesterday a reporter talking to Gaddafi forces said they complained that rebels kept popping out of buildings with RPGs and machine guns, then quickly retreating back into the maze of buildings. A lot of Gaddafi forces are gathering now, but they are in range of a lot of the rebels heaviest weaponary, and if the UN decides on a no-fly zone and the no-drive zone then that gathering of Gaddafi forces is going to present what could be described as a "target rich environment". Being part of a large gathering of military units preparing to attack a city isn't the greatest place to be when the UN decides that anything being used to attack "civilians or civilian objects" is a valid target for airstrikes, be it aircraft, tanks or soldiers. If the proposed resolution goes through without article 10 being removed then Gaddafi is totally hosed. Bit more from Twitter: quote:@iyad_elbaghdadi: Latest report is that Gaddafi airstrike on Benghazi airport caused no damage; possibly one of his jets downed. quote:@iyad_elbaghdadi: Spokesperson from Benghazi now confirming that the jet that bombed Benghazi has been downed over the sea. quote:@iyad_elbaghdadi: Spokesperson from Benghazi says runways not damaged and "our jets will respond". quote:@iyad_elbaghdadi: Spokesperson from Benghazi says "youths are looking for the jet's wreckage so we can provide video footage". State TV is claiming Misarata is under Gaddafi control, which based on other reports I've read is nonsense, and State TV is also reporting explosions and gunfire around Benghazi airport, probably the noise of their bombers missing and getting shot down if the rebels are to be believed. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 12:43 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 12:37
|
|
|
So if the Rebels are to believed they are a bunch of regular guys with AK's backed up by a strategically competent military. Meanwhile the loyalist forces are a bunch of overworked yes-men and overzealous foreign mercenaries who just happen to have the upper hand due to air superiority and brute force. Assuming that's correct what's the odds of the US and Germany saying "We only opposed the NFZ to help the rebels lure Dhaffy into a false sense of security and overstretch his forces."? Even the slightest chance that Ghaddaffi just got played into lining up his forces into the world's largest row of dominoes is making me giggle uncontrollably.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 13:24
|
|
|
The Gaddafi forces also have a couple of extremely well trained and loyal brigades commanded by Gaddafi's sons, plus the mercenaries. These forces aren't 100% focused on the East yet as they are trying to bring the towns and cities around Tripoli back under the control of Gaddafi, especially Misrata, which seems to be doing a lot of damage to Gaddafi's forces at the moment. I think international opposition to a NFZ evaporated when it looked like the rebels were starting to lose badly. However, the complete rout of rebels forces that some news organisations were reporting seems to have misread the situation, and the rebels are using much heavier equipment now. It also seems they are doing a better job at downing enemy aircraft, sources in Benghazi say 4 aircraft have been down today, and there's been two defections of aircraft. Sounds like Gaddafi is trying to bomb the airstrip their and losing a lot of planes while failing to hit the target. Something else I've noticed today is a lot of people on Twitter who are usually the first to report these various incidents saying they are doing everything they can to get video and photographic evidence of their claims, and that they believe the western media no longer believes them to be reliable sources of information, so they want to prove they are, especially now there's a lack of western journalists in the region. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 13:56 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 13:34
|
|
|
AJA has reported that the rebels have captured Ali Sonousi, Head of Internal Security, and apparently someone who has been spending his time army tribes in the East to fight the rebels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:03
|
|
|
Interesting tweets from the Secretary General of NATO in the last few minutes:quote:#NATO stands ready to protect the civilian population against attacks from the regime. #Libya quote:If #Gadaffi prevails it will send a clear signal that violence pays. #NATO #Libya quote:The sooner the United Nations can reach an agreement on #Libya the better. #NATO #UN And there's this tweet as well: quote:#Libya #NATO One source is reporting (unconfirmed) NATO is readying for #NoFly enforcement independent of #UNSC action on draft resolution.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:12
|
|
|
Here's some Twitter accounts worth following: http://twitter.com/bungdan http://twitter.com/shabablibya http://twitter.com/LibyanDictator http://twitter.com/evanchill http://twitter.com/Liberty4Libya http://twitter.com/BaghdadBrian http://twitter.com/LibyanFrontier http://twitter.com/AlmanaraMedia http://twitter.com/iyad_elbaghdadi http://twitter.com/AndersFoghR
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:13
|
|
|
Members of the two tribes State TV claimed had sided with Gaddafi yesterday are currently taking part in anti-Gaddafi demonstrations in Benghazi according to a couple of different rerporters in the city. There were claims yesterday that State TV was attempting to create splits between tribes in Benghazi by making false claims about who they supported.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:24
|
|
|
Again thank you very much for the time and effort keeping us up to date, Brown Moses - especially now that many reporters have left Libya and most of the Western public is spending its time panicking about ATOMZ!!!111 Hang in there rebels 
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:33
|
|
|
Indeed Brown Moses, thanks for keeping up the updates!
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:35
|
|
|
I just have to say that most of these reports are from Twitter and other unverfiyable sources, so unless you see video or pictures you should take them with a pinch of salt. However, there's still a number of reliable sources in Benghazi, so those reports tend to be a bit more reliable then anything from outside of Benghazi. More on the shot down jets (total 3) From Almanara news: quote:Witnesses from #Benghazi to Almanara said this morning the sky was all full of dark clouds, Gaddafi jets had to come under the clouds in order to attack their target, This made it easier for the Revolutionaries to shoot down the jets. One jet was shot down early this morning and 2 were shot down in the 2nd round of bombing #Libya #Benghazi quote:Al Jazeera's James Bays in Tobruk reports that fresh air strikes have taken place in Benghazi in the last few minutes, with the airport being targetted in one of the attacks. Al Jazeera's Tony Birtley in Benghazi says that there have been casualties, though the exact numbers are unclear at this early quote:Al Jazeera's James Bays reports with the latest from the eastern rebel-held town of Tobruk: Misrata is also reporting that it's currently not being attacked, but everyone is preparing for another battle. Brown Moses fucked around with this message at 14:42 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:37
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:However, the complete rout of rebels forces that some news organisations were reporting seems to have misread the situation, and the rebels are using much heavier equipment now. It also seems they are doing a better job at downing enemy aircraft, sources in Benghazi say 4 aircraft have been down today, and there's been two defections of aircraft. Sounds like Gaddafi is trying to bomb the airstrip their and losing a lot of planes while failing to hit the target. Sounds also a bit like rebel propaganda going overdrive in order to boost morale. In any case it is interesting that the heavier rebel equipment would only choose to engage now. If we choose to trust those reports, the probable reason for not using them earlier would be Gaddafis air superiority. Moving that stuff and the required fule & ammo around a desert highway can't be a good idea. A Toyota technical would be a bit too small, quick and low-worth target to endanger jets by flying low, while ammo trucks on the highway would be easy to hit and worth the risk. This would mean that it hasn't been logistically possible for the rebels to use heavy equipment earlier out on the highway. But now at Ajdabiya/Benghazi, they would have enough ammo, defensive structures and anti-aircraft in place to actually engage with artillery and armor.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:49
|
|
|
Several people have questioned whether or not the planes were downed, and the sources of the claims have promised footage, so hopefully that'll turn up soon. I think you are right about the lack of air defence hindering the rebels ability to safely move heavy equipment and supplies. That's why it'll be a lot harder for Gaddafi to attack Benghazi directly, because all the heavy stuff is their, and it's well defended by anti aircraft guns.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 14:54
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:Several people have questioned whether or not the planes were downed, and the sources of the claims have promised footage, so hopefully that'll turn up soon. If they don't, can they be discounted as sources in the future ? The amount of obvious propaganda is driving me to hoping for a Gadaffi victory just to see how they will spin the fall of Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:00
|
|
|
The problem with figuring out what sources are reliable is that it's difficult to tell what's rumours and what isn't. For example, this story had what I consider reliable sources reporting that citizens in Benghazi were reporting jets had been shot down, but not how many, where they were, or even if those people saw it with their own eyes. Then the other news Tweets pick up on it and you get this echo chamber effect where you aren't sure where the original information came from. Add to that the tendency for people to claim stuff is confirmed the second they see two people Tweet the same thing and you can't really be sure of anything without seeing pictures. Then sometimes these sort of stories pan out, for example the capturing of the tanker with 25,000 tonnes of fuel heading to Gaddafi forces, that turned out to be true, with photos and everything. I also read stuff about rebels with boats using RPGs harassing shipping, but there's no way to confirm that. Or another example is the claims that warships were sunk using aircraft, including a helicopter. Those claims were made before it was known that the rebels had any form of air power, and I still doubted it until yesterday when I read reports from a reliable source that they had seen a military helicopter patrolling the docks in Benghazi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:12
|
|
|
Anders Fogh Rasmussen, the Secretary General of NATO who I posted some Tweets from earlier is making a lot of strongly worded statements about Libya, which based on some of stuff I've read might suggest that even without the UN resolution NATO may be prepared to enforce their own no fly zone. A couple of weeks ago I read an article saying that as long as the local powers (EU, NATO, AU and Arab Leage) agreed on a need for a no fly zone that the UN resolution wouldn't be legally necessary, and they could go ahead without one. This means that in the unlikely event China or Russia blocks it (which as I mentioned before is unlikely as they rarely use their veto, and never have when it's involved countries outside their sphere of influence) then NATO could still go ahead and enforce a no fly zone.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:18
|
|
|
From AJ Arabis via LibyaFeb17.com:quote:Abdul Hafeeth Ghoga spokesman for the Transitional Council has just made the following points which we have translated and bring to you in summarised form: From AJE: quote:AFP, quoting the state news agency Jana, says that the Libyan army will halt military operations from Sunday in order to give opposition fighters a chance to lay down their arms and benefit from an amnesty.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:23
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:I think you are right about the lack of air defence hindering the rebels ability to safely move heavy equipment and supplies. That's why it'll be a lot harder for Gaddafi to attack Benghazi directly, because all the heavy stuff is their, and it's well defended by anti aircraft guns. It's also the second largest city in Libya (slightly larger than Misurata), meaning that it will take a lot of forces for Gaddafi to secure - operating so large troops so far from Tripoli is difficult logistically. The other cities in eastern Libya are very small in comparison, making them easy to surround. Also in Benghazi the defenders have sea in the west, giving them one secure flank where the tanks cannot come from. It all depends on the morale of the rebel forces. If they still have faith in victory, they can hold Benghazi for at least some time - Libyan army and loyalist militias will be very hard pressed to succeed in heavy urban fighting in the short term. And if the defenders are able to hold until summer comes, it will be even harder for Gaddafi to conduct offensive operations under the scorching Saharan sun. A good sand storm would also ground Gaddafi's air forces for a while and be a not so fun experience for an army standing outside the city. But if the rebel leaders cannot make their forces fight like Russians fought in Stalingrad, then it will be a very easy victory for Gaddafi. However, holding Benghazi won't prevent the army from taking the inland route and driving to Tobruk. I'm predicting that Tobruk will fall first, although that might not be as easy as it sounds - it will stretch the Libyan logistics even further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:26
|
|
|
There's a bit from AJE that relates to Gaddafi's options at the moment:quote:Al Jazeera's James Bays in Tobruk has the latest: quote:More on that statement regarding a possible ceasefire. The Jana state news agency says: Maybe an attempt to appease the UN before todays vote? Seems rather lame to me.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:34
|
|
|
Mmhm. If I were there, I'd be busily figuring out where Gadaffi was going to be sending his tanks, and pre-ranging the artillery. And waiting. And maybe sending a relief column somewhere out to the desert to hide and wait, half an hour away. Gadaffi's going to send _everything_ to raze Benghazi. Might as well make him pay for that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:35
|
|
|
When this is all over, the narrative will have to be "freedom fighting rebels secure victory from the jaws of defeat against deranged tyrant". Obviously a no-fly zone is needed, and the US airforce should only be a Deus Ex Machina when it is least likely to be noticed. Otherwise, the narrative will be "freedom fighting rebels saved from defeat by American interference". Narratives are pretty drat effective in that part of the world. During the Suez Crisis, the gods themselves (the US and the USSR) descended below, pulled a Deus Ex Machina, and drove out the Israelis, the British, and the French. Nasser took all the credit, and pan-Arabism was given a tremendous boost. If this wave of democracy is to continue or be strengthened, the gods themselves (namely, us), must engineer it so that the rebels win the day, inch by bloody inch, and hit the ground running. EDIT: Another possibility would be the Egyptian calvary coming to the rescue, but I think that's a long shot. big fat retard fucked around with this message at 15:50 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:However, holding Benghazi won't prevent the army from taking the inland route and driving to Tobruk. I'm predicting that Tobruk will fall first, although that might not be as easy as it sounds - it will stretch the Libyan logistics even further. Good point on Tobruk. It makes way too much sense to cut the rebel connections to Egypt, and I don't think the rebels are in the position to harrass the road to Tobruk either.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
More rumours:quote:Unconfirmed There are unconfirmed reports that some high ranking Officers in Gaddafi’s forces which are attempting to leave Libya from the eastern border with Tunisia before the potential passing of the UN no-fly zone resolution today. This has been sourced from Misratah’s free press movement.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 15:58
|
|
|
THE HORSES rear end posted:Narratives are pretty drat effective in that part of the world. During the Suez Crisis, the gods themselves (the US and the USSR) descended below, pulled a Deus Ex Machina, and drove out the Israelis, the British, and the French. Nasser took all the credit, and pan-Arabism was given a tremendous boost. If this wave of democracy is to continue or be strengthened, the gods themselves (namely, us), must engineer it so that the rebels win the day, inch by bloody inch, and hit the ground running. Why would the US want to selflessly promote a new Nasser rather than itself as savior of democracy? Edit: For that matter, wouldn't the optimal solution for the US be to save the rebels but do so in a way that shows they would have been hosed without US assistance? That way would-be rebels in US ally countries would be more likely to think twice before taking up arms. Dr Kool-AIDS fucked around with this message at 16:07 on Mar 17, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
There's so much talk of a No-Fly-Zone but nothing about what it is meant to achieve. For all that I can see it would only be a very inefficient way to delay the inevitable. If the purpose is to support the rebels militarily, then only acts of war will do that: it's much easier and much more effective to bomb armoured columns driving in the desert and fire cruise missiles into air force bases than it is to watch Libyan airspace 24/7. The other, less direct way of interfering would be to give arms and training to the rebels. But even with these actions you would have to ask what the strategy is: to wait for the Benghazi rebels to re-seize the initiative? Put boots on ground? Let the civil war continue possibly for years? It's very unlikely that any negotiations will be possible between the two sides. So the logical conclusion would be to invade and put an end to this, if that is desired, or stay out of it if getting into war is undesirable. Like one great strategist said: "Do, or do not. There is no try."
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 16:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 18:26 |
|
|
As smn said earlier the problem the rebels have is they can all the tanks and artillery in the world, but if they can't defend it from air strikes then it'll all rapidly be turned into junk by Gaddafi's forces. It does seem like they have access to heavy vehicles, it's just they can't use them at the moment, so a no fly zone would allow them to fight back using those heavy vehicles. If the resolution allows Gaddafi's armies to be attacked on the ground then the situation will quickly reverse. Ras Lanuf and other small towns between Benghazi and Sirte are pretty much deserted and difficult to defend, so it could be a matter of a few days before the rebels push them back to Sirte. What you'd probably also seem is more of Gaddafi's supporters trying to escape possibly prosecution for war crimes and either joining the rebels or trying to escape the country, as well as towns and cities rising up again as the tide quickly turns in the favour of the rebels. However, it's very hard to predict what could happen, worse case scenario it just lengthens a very long civil war, but personally I don't see that happening if Gaddafi's troops start getting bombed. There's not many places you can hide a armoured on a desert road, something the first Gulf War proved very graphically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 16:09
|
|