Libya, Will Gaddafi prevail?
 

For a moment I thought the rebels might have a shot at ousting Gaddafi, now I'm not so sure. I think they are well and truly hosed.

France is so far the only nation to step to the plate and acknowledge the Rebels legitimacy. Everyone else seems to be doing a lot of hand wringing and wait and see.

The French seem to like demonstrations and revolutions, they certainly pitched in when it came to ours.

It would have been a miracle for the rebels to be successful without major parts of the army defecting. Posted previously was a very important point that all should have understood. The difference between Egypt and Libya. Egyptian army had been educated by or was informed of western principles that have been standard in the US since sometime well after 1920. Libyan army has been trained in the extremist rhetoric promoted by their 40 year glorious leader. They have no concept that an army serves it people. Under Kaddafi training, the people are something that must be kept caged like wild animals in the zoo. Libyans army is trained to think like a Medieval army that only serves it king.

Same is part of recent Latin American history. Only the army was 'smart enough' to know what is good for the people. Need we cite Chile, Argentina, or most of Central America as classic examples?

Without the army, that rebellion was at risk.

2) A guerilla war means people can hide. Ambush. Do what the American colonists did to the British Army. What Vietnamese did to the French. But Libyans have a geography that is ideal only for tanks and planes. The rebels have no such equipment.

3) Worse, rebel troops want to run to the fight like firemen did in the WTC. Like British rebels did to attack a massively smaller Roman Legion only to have maybe one million massacred. These rebel soldiers have no idea of discipline or strategy. Apparently have few if any leaders who can properly lead them.

4) Kaddafi's son is wise. He let the rebels extend themselves foolishly until ambushed just outside of Sirt. Surrounded and devastated the people of Missaru (just east of Tripoli). And literally took apart rebel cities in the west only when ready. These massacres may have been grizzly. He waited for his tanks and munitions to be ready. Used desert in a 'rope a dope' strategy.

5) No nation can move in until the most responsible neighbors decide what is best. Responsibility falls firstmost on Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Chad, and Sudan. If they do not call for international intervention, then nobody has any right to intervene. Even if it does become a bloodbath. Welcome to hard reality. Only other honest way for international intervention is a full approval by the UN Security Council or General Assembly. And that will not happen.

6) Damning weeks ago were conversations heard between rebel Generals and their political leaders for more supplies. Political leaders were so concerned about Kaddafi’s so successful propaganda as to not even beg for massive military aid. (ie a British diplomat and 8 SAS soldiers 'captured' and sent home because they would feed into Kaddafi’s propaganda). So they doomed themselves.

Conclusion: the only question is whether the rebels can last long enough to finally learn basic military concepts. Until they do, they will not succeed. And since the world so much needs Libyan oil (thank you Chevy and its crap Camaro as one example), welcome to a deal with the devil.

hey don't forget ford and their mustang.

you make some good points but fuck bro....look at what you're saying

will kadafi prevail? no he wont. period. hell i;ll offer to off him if need be. i;d do it out of general principal. why? he;s a jackass. and if you disagree then step in line after him. i;ll squash you too.

I hate it, but that's about what I came here to say, too.

I read years ago the point that revolutions only succeed if a large proportion of the security forces - army, police, etc - will support it, or at least refuse to fight it, as happened in Egypt. KQGadddafffi has enough loyal troops, plus foreign mercenaries, to do the job.

Option A: Suppose we (the rest of the world) impose a no-fly zone. Then what? Gadafi still has tanks, artillery, logistics, and crucially command and control structures, troops that have trained to act together. The rebels have toyotas with machine guns on them, belief in their cause, and knowledge that they will get no mercy if they surrender or are defeated. This isn't even a fair fight. A no fly zone would merely slow the inevitable.

Option B - A no-fly zone, plus air strikes on the Libyan army. Done heavily enough, it would equalise the terms of combat, and maybe scare a lot of the mercs into going home. Then what? A protracted civil war? Whoopee. Add to that the collateral damage our airstrikes would do, the propaganda card this would hand gadafi, the friendly fire losses... Gadafi has the logistics and command structures to win, and as TW points out, the terrrain isn't too suitable for guerilla tactics.

Option C: Full scale intervention with air and ground forces. See option B, with more casualties. Replay Iraq at best, Afghanistan or Somalia at worst. Hands up who wants to do that? Now check your wallet. Still keen?

I'm tring to come up with an option D. We buy off Gadafi's mercenaries - having choked off G's supllies of cash, give money to the rebels, they can buy the Merc's services. It has happened before. Meanwhile, seditious propaganda among the regular Libyan military encourages them to defect, and discretely supplied weapons help the rebels hold their own on the battlefield.
I don't see it working. Gadafi has a Stalinesque grip on his army. The mercs are good for dirty work like killing civilians, but not that important in battle. And all this would take time, which the rebels don't have.


What really pisses me off is that this will break the momentum of the Arab revolt, which can only be sustained by popular belief that they will win. All the other Middle-eastern tyrants must be secretly very pleased by Gadafi's victories, so I expect tehy will oppose any foreign 'meddling'. The message is getting through - try a revolution, you get massacred.

Welcome to another decade or two of repression.

Fuck it, I hope I'm wrong. :(

Plthijinx ... feel free, but you'll have to take out his sons (plenty of them) and several hundred other wannabe tyrants too. And their body guards.

Better take Chuck Norris with you.

i respect you. you know this. now this.....libya needs to be taught a lesson that it forgot over 10 years ago. 2 percent of the oil? fuck em. go in and rape their ass. and at the same time why not drill more here? not gonna happen, why? because too many people think that we should not tap our recourses. hmmf. 5 dollar a gallon gas prices are in the near future. they already are in avgas.

libya forgot about being bombed before.

We - well, you guys, technically - bombed them in I think 1986.

It didn't work. Gadafi lived and stayed in power, and replied with the Lockerbie bombing.

What was the lesson again?

I like your motivations and agree with your desired outcomes, but this shouldn't be decided by emotion, but thought through so we can at least visualise some path to success before we start.

Tell me the story, that starts from where we are now, and progresses by plausible stages to a satisfactory outcome. Please.

lolwut? Horrid comparison there dude.

The purpose was not to defeat him militarily. Air power cannot create any military victory. The attack very successfully changed his international agenda from overt terrorism to trying to becoming an African power broker. At least that was his attempt.

Subpoint - notice how ineffective carriers were to a nation whose infrastructure and most all population were exposed on the coast. Most of the attack had to be launched from Britain using one of America's worst planes, the F-111. Carrier's mostly performed protection for those F-111s. This paragraph is about what everyone should have known even that long ago. Carriers are not a massive weapons. Are mostly hyped by myths to be feared.

Air power cannot defeat anyone. The Libyan attack is best considered a diplomatic foray. It successfully changed his political aspirations. Nothing more. It was a powerful diplomatic message. Nothing more should have been expected from those attacks.

I will never speak politically correct at the expense of honesty.

Emotion only appears after all conclusions are done. Then I ask how I feel about it. Well, I feel I do not like what I posted. Not for one minute. But I also understand how trivial (irrelevant) those lives are because of the situation they are all in. My feelings also say that grizzly conclusion is necessary.

BTW, anyone who does not like what I posted should be posting four letter descriptions of Egypt, Tunisia, Algeria, Chad, Sudan, and the Arab League. That is where any international response should be coming from. Like most European nations during the Balkans, those nations should be embarrassed. But they aren't. Many of those government are / were just as guilty.

If you have any anger, that is where most of it should be directed. And also with the pathetic European response in Bosnia until Clinton kicked them in the ass. If any Europeans are insulted, I still do not care. Honesty based in hard facts that say why always trumps emotions.

Like I said, I do not like it. But a grizzly massacre may be necessary if something extraordinary is not initiated by the governments, institutions, and rebel leaders most responsible.

Yes. But again, that and the resulting chaos was a reality. A contempt for how fire fighters should operate remains a reality during 11 September. Combined with another adversarial police vs fire department relationship. I can appreciate what fire fighters did due to their emotions. But discipline must always trump emotions. Same problem exists with rebel soldiers. One reason why so many did and will die.

That is affects your emotions should be irrelevant. I posted that to make the point - bluntly. Including the part about how decisions combined with any emotion can only make situations (and death rates) worse.

We are discussing war no different then 11 Sept. Welcome to how the ruthless are so successful. And, BTW, notice how someone so ‘liberal’ (according to UG) is instead so brutally honest. How this nation's response to Libya must be; so that extremist rhetoric does not do more harm.

Provided were five points why a grizzly massacre might occur all over Libya.

With all the media focused on the earthquake in Japan, it might be a very bad couple days for the rebels in Libya...

We would certainly have more flexibility if Bush had not gotten us involved in Iraq.

Somebody should fly a plane full of Libyans into GQ's palace. :rolleyes:

What do you have against men's fashion magazines?

lol. Sorry, I meant "KQGadddafffi's";)

Anyone whose name has that many spellings should be shot straight off, just for making it so damn hard for reporters.

I agree, ZenQKum

European governments "completely puzzled" about U.S. position on Libya

Britain, France and the Arab League all demanded that KQGadddafffi go, and are now confused as to why the US isn't acting like the big boss for them on Libya.

Now they look like the impotent lip service players they really are, which is embarrassing for them.

Nevertheless, by the time I posted that, United Nations Authorizes Strikes in Libya

As things go, Kaddafi will be in Benghazi next week.

The resolution is worded interestingly. Protect civilians. Not protect rebel soldiers. Wonder how that will be interpreted?

To have an effective military response will take almost a week. Rebels may not even have Benghazi by then. May be desperately holding out in Tobruk.

KQGadddafffi is a pussy.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...esolution.html

Slippery Slope.

We should let France do it. They are closest.

YES! Let's send the French!


*doubles over laughing*

France, Italy, Spain, hell even Egypt should be in on it. If we get dragged in militarily anyone who voted for Obama has no right to bitch about Bush's military exploits. This is a mistake.

Srsly, though, the world can't have it both ways.


we should stay OUT of Libya. OUT OUT OUT.

For real. It's time for some of these things to be Not Our Problem(TM).

Send in the French? Made me laugh almost as much as when I heard GQKDFii had announced an "immediate ceasefire". Yeah right.

The most interesting piece I've heard lately is that weapons are flowing in from (or more likely via) the Egyptian army. This, plus the no fly zone, might give the rebels a bit of a chance, but in reality, no-one can become proficient with a new weapon in a few days. Practice and training are needed.

I still think the rebels will lose, unless the "no-fly zone" is interpreted to include "no tanks or artillery either, or we'll bomb them".

I hope, somehow, the rebels win. Get the momentum for this Jasmine Revolution going again.

The French are survivors. They have my respect.
We're a tiny nation who likes to punch above its weight - the French have more land but not many more people. Neither the UK or la belle France have enough resources to do this alone.

I'm not saying America should be involved.
The situation in Libya is complex and we can't intervene every time a country murders its own citizens. But I completely understand why no-one has currently engaged without US backup.

Cameron is going to see Prince Sarkozy today.
Hope he brings back some duty free.

Are you seriously saying that the UK can't kick Libya's ass in a fight because it lacks resources?

Silly national stereotypes aside, the French can handle this with a little communication assistance from us.

srsly. It's Libya we're talking about, not all of Africa, or China.

MARCH 19, 2011
OBAMA: 'Today we are part of a broad coalition. We are answering the calls of a threatened people. And we are acting in the interests of the United States and the world'...

MARCH 19, 2003
BUSH: 'American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger'...

If you voted for Obama you should never say another bad thing about Bush and his attacks on Iraq.... Obama basically just stuck his foot in another trap and used US forces to attack another country based on a UN mandate.

Merc, I voted for Bush twice, and against Obama, and am generally the most conservative guy in any given room. That aside, you have to admit that these are not parallel situations - only the rhetoric is the same.

I would agree...there is no parallel at all.

Until such time as Obama authorizes the invasion and occupation of Libya with 100,000+ ground forces w/o a UN resolution, as was the case of Bush's actions.

A more appropriate parallel would be towards Bush I and the Iraq no-fly zone.

smoothmoniker- what you fail to understand is merc is a one trick pony.

UK has been so severely depleted with unnecessary wars that the UK cannot even supply fighter aircraft for (what will be) their only remaining aircraft carrier.

UK is so severely depleted as to fear risk to even one Tornado aircraft (at maybe $300million per platform).

Libya is first and foremost a problem addressed by the local nations. France is acting because other closer nations who should be taking more responsibility (Tunisia, Algeria, Chad, Niger, Sudan, and Egypt) are not or cannot.

An example of the new world order that George Sr defined (despite extremist naysaying from his own party). How long is required for world people to learn lessons from history? Slowly, the world will mock extremists and ostriches by learning fundamental lessons from history. Learn from history that define responsibility and the requirements of government. These lessons are mostly and still unknown. Too new to so many people. Even 70 years ago, the American government would do to their people what is today called political corruption. These social ethic and international responsibility are concepts very new throughout the world – even in America.

The French are simply doing what most nations (and people) in the world have not yet learned. A nation has certain responsibilities to citizens in neighboring states.

Americans are only a support function. Tiny destroyers and submarines launched cruise missiles. What Clinton did in the 1990s to (we later learned) completely defang Saddam (because Saddam was a threat to no one). What Reagan did to Kaddafi. What Ford did in Cambodia. What George Sr did in Panama. What Reagan did in Lebanon. What Clinton did in the Balkans. What Carter attempted in Iran. What George Sr did in Somalia. Where is any of this similar to an unjustified invasion of Iraq? What Obama did was simply support France, in part, because so many other nations did not (ie Italy) or could not.

Fixed it.

Your editting makes no sense. The UK is down to its last aircraft carrier. And may need even French fighter pilots and planes to arm it.

Your entire life makes no sense. And 99.9% of your posts.


So there.

Nyah.

From the Washington Post of 20 Mar 2011: As noted previously, interesting will be how that UN resolution is interpreted. In part, because some Arab governments may view it as also justifying attacks on their nation. And may make future necessary interventions impossible.

Also is a question of where was the Arab league when it came to being a responsible neighbor? Again, these concepts are extremely new. The world is so far away from learning about responsibility, ethics, respect for citizens, the purpose of government, etc. Good thing mankind is maybe 100 years from spreading to other planets. This world is still dominated by barbaric thinking. Basic social and ethical concepts are so new and so little understood throughout the world. The galaxy does not need contamination by Neanderthal and Cro-magan barbarians. Maybe we did not let things get bad enough. Maybe there have not yet been enough massacres so that other nations finally learn what they and most of the world has not yet learned. Responsibility, social ethics, and the purpose of government. These concepts did not even widely exist in the US 70 years ago.

These are topics for adults. You should not be reading what is too advanced for you.

Kisses, tw! you make my day -as always!

:lol:

I'm appalled by the cowardice of the Arab League. After asking for Western intervention to declare and defend a no-fly zone, they are now condemning the military action need to enforce it.

Did they think that KGQuiddaffi's air defenses would be gently removed with unicorn kisses and rainbow sprinkles?

Then recuse yourself at once, or publicly confess that you are a grotesque hypocrite, wholly incapable of politics, and have never enjoyed an adulthood. You are the very last person to be talking about "topics for adults."

I KNOW how babyish you get when you are crossed. So does everyone here. I shall demonstrate it by crossing you now, you amateur twit. Your entire mentality is designed and constructed to elicit the contempt of the virtuous, and owing to your posts, my contempt for your mentality is nine times bottomless, and nine times beyond that. TW, you are carefully, systemically worthless, and if you were a horse they'd've shot you.

Apparently what they heard is not what they were told. The UN resolution was worded to permit interpretation. Attacks were implemented without support for Arab nations. So many were invited to participate and rejected the invitation. Could not make a decision fast enough.

Appreciate Sarkozy's position. Benghazi would have been conquered in days had the French not pushed for action. Tobruk also probably conquered. The Arab league did not care. Sarkozy did not have enough time to rally Arab support.

Ironically, it was Kaddafi's own words (threatening a massacre) that may have gotten the UN resolution approved. But that did not give Arab nations enough time to appreciate a problem.

ORLY? I think I can vote for someone and not agree with everything he says or does. You and your ilk may think that we are all blinded to the savior, but that's just rhetoric poppycock.

Did YOU agree with everything Bush did. I don't think so, or so you professed. Part of being an informed patriotic Amurkin, right?

At any rate, I'll still laugh and point at Bush.

Yeah! Some people can think for themselves. Not repubicans.... but some of us others can!

I wonder if the attack on Gaddafi’s compound was nothing more than a near miss.
I find it far too convenient that an administrative building gets bombed within Gaddafi's compound when journalists repeatedly report that location has no "command control capabilities." Additionally, the responses from the allied side seem less than genuine. Some telling quotes:
A coalition military official

then another from the US Commander:
U.S. Vice Adm. Bill Gortney
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
@smooth - Thats what they have done for ages - they speak from both sides of their mouths. They never actually say anything definitive. They have always played both sides. Thats why they cannot be trusted.

TW - it's hard to see their reversal as more than political pandering to their own populace. They want Kadafi gone, but they also know there is political capital to be gained at home by being "anti-western".

The courageous act would be to stand up and say "The arab world and the west hold the value of human life in common, and we act together to protect that value. This is a model of cooperation to be respected" even if there is a political cost to that action.

From what it seems, the quickest way to end this conflict is just to put a bullet in Gaddafi's head. The military hierarchy is very unstable, by design, so there is a good chance everything will fall apart if Gaddafi is taken out. But, publicly acknowledging this would send out a shit storm that Obama, and the US military in general, really doesn't want right now. The response he is getting from both sides right now is ridiculous.

I know! Let's get SADDAM! Mission accomplished!

:bolt:

End the conflict as in "needed" UN or US involvement. Nothing we can do to stop Libya from going into a bloody civil war. But, hey, at least everyone would then be on more or less equal footing...

Troll.

:lol2:

Tho thenthitive.

No government is going to agree to kill a leader that still has nominal control of their country! Talk about opening the floodgates. Oh, bye Obama! Bang-bang, now you're just like JFK. Oh sorry David (actually too dull to assassinate).

You do not set up a mandate for assassination, no matter how psychotic they are.

And if "we" killed Gaddafi, wouldn't we then be responsible for the mess left behind? This is a dictator who has personally acted as Libya's government for FORTY TWO YEARS. The world was a very different place in 1969, and Gaddafi has hardly been interested in sharing progress in infrastructure and development with his country. Oh sorry, I mean outside of his own family.

About the only thing Libyan society is replete with is spies and censorship. Do we really want to be captain of this ship? The choice for the next leader of Libya has to come from the Libyans, once they have overthrown him. And yes, it's going to be messy. We aided the Mudjahadeen in getting the Russians out of Afghanistan. And left the door open for the Taliban. Let's try not to get too involved this time.