Libya in new hands
- Thread starter Forostar
- Start date
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
That is this weekend, when did Khadaffi start killing civillians to end the rebellion? I believe it started in the last week of Febuary.
That is this weekend, when did Khadaffi start killing civillians to end the rebellion? I believe it started in the last week of Febuary.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Obama did have a discussion on it a few weeks ago, and he said that it was bad that Qaddafi was killing his own people, and that he should be removed by the Libyan rebels.
HOWEVER.
Obama hasn't said anything else on it because he placed the ball in the court of the international arena. He wasn't prepared to take unilateral action.
Ask yourself this question: did you want the USA to go into Libya alone, or mostly alone, without international law, or for Obama to talk a lot of trash just to back down? The USA's attitude on Libya - Obama's restraint - was one of the major reasons that the USA/UK/France/Canadian diplomats were able to convince China, Russia et. al to abstain in the security council.
Basically, if you want Obama to talk a huge game and go play cowboy in Libya, he could have done that. But if you take the time to look at how he handled this issue, he played the game of international politics extremely well. So, I guess it's up to you. Do you want a president who gets up and brags about how the US is gonna kick Qaddafi's ass...or do you want a president who walks softly but carries the proverbially big stick, and gets it done?
Obama did have a discussion on it a few weeks ago, and he said that it was bad that Qaddafi was killing his own people, and that he should be removed by the Libyan rebels.
HOWEVER.
Obama hasn't said anything else on it because he placed the ball in the court of the international arena. He wasn't prepared to take unilateral action.
Ask yourself this question: did you want the USA to go into Libya alone, or mostly alone, without international law, or for Obama to talk a lot of trash just to back down? The USA's attitude on Libya - Obama's restraint - was one of the major reasons that the USA/UK/France/Canadian diplomats were able to convince China, Russia et. al to abstain in the security council.
Basically, if you want Obama to talk a huge game and go play cowboy in Libya, he could have done that. But if you take the time to look at how he handled this issue, he played the game of international politics extremely well. So, I guess it's up to you. Do you want a president who gets up and brags about how the US is gonna kick Qaddafi's ass...or do you want a president who walks softly but carries the proverbially big stick, and gets it done?
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
There is something else. There's a reason why Obama was willing to join now, and not earlier:
He wanted to see if the rebels were winning or not. At first things were looking more positive, but lately we've seen a rapid advancement of Khadaffi's troops, so later it looked like the rebels were losing.
Call me naive, but I hadn't expected this turn of the ride either.
So he got convinced. He understood need for intervention and at the same time international politics were driving on all engines.
There is something else. There's a reason why Obama was willing to join now, and not earlier:
He wanted to see if the rebels were winning or not. At first things were looking more positive, but lately we've seen a rapid advancement of Khadaffi's troops, so later it looked like the rebels were losing.
Call me naive, but I hadn't expected this turn of the ride either.
So he got convinced. He understood need for intervention and at the same time international politics were driving on all engines.
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
I think the Obama Admninistration has been all over on this, we'll see how long our invovlement is, but there are plenty in Congress (including many Dems) that wanted a Congressional resuolution on this. to me, it seems as if they were really hoping the rebels would win so we had to so nothing, but when it was clear they would lose, we decided to get in. I'm not really clear as to what the winning scenario is here.
I'm fine with us taking action on this, I think it should have been done earlier though, there was a point 10 days ago or so where we may have been able to end this by supporting the rebels.
I think the Obama Admninistration has been all over on this, we'll see how long our invovlement is, but there are plenty in Congress (including many Dems) that wanted a Congressional resuolution on this. to me, it seems as if they were really hoping the rebels would win so we had to so nothing, but when it was clear they would lose, we decided to get in. I'm not really clear as to what the winning scenario is here.
I'm fine with us taking action on this, I think it should have been done earlier though, there was a point 10 days ago or so where we may have been able to end this by supporting the rebels.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
I disagree completely with you, Foro.
It was always clear from the moment Qaddafi resolved to use his full-blown army on the protesters that western aid would be necessary. It's not a coincidence that military action happened within 24 hours of the UN resolution. I don't think it's a matter of winning or losing - it's a modern(ish) army vs. some guys with AKs. One of those is going to lose every time.
Congress wants a resolution, they might get it, but it doesn't mean Obama will stop US action. Clinton's Congressional resolution didn't pass, and he didn't stop bombing Serbia.
I disagree completely with you, Foro.
It was always clear from the moment Qaddafi resolved to use his full-blown army on the protesters that western aid would be necessary. It's not a coincidence that military action happened within 24 hours of the UN resolution. I don't think it's a matter of winning or losing - it's a modern(ish) army vs. some guys with AKs. One of those is going to lose every time.
Congress wants a resolution, they might get it, but it doesn't mean Obama will stop US action. Clinton's Congressional resolution didn't pass, and he didn't stop bombing Serbia.
Ardius
Trooper
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
The problem is not just equipment per se, but more that the rebels have limited to no airpower. And aircraft are the easiest morale-breaker ever since WW2. Without aircraft, Gaddafi's forces are almost on a level playing field with the rebels as from the (admittedly, unreliable) reports, the rebels were doing ok in most skirmishes. As Abyssinia displayed oh so long ago, you can beat superior technology in the right circumstances.
Anyway, each day that passes the more I worry this is a terrible decsion by government. What happens when a UK pilot is shot down and captured? Are we going to leave them? As I keep saying, this can escalate very easily and now that we are involved its far more difficult to leave Libya alone.
I would have thought Iraq displayed how long, costly and questionably beneficial for the country foreign intervention is. It also raises questions why we are also not taking out the dictatorships present in the rest of Africa and the middle-east with their similar protests? Or are we slowly going to intervene in all these countries? Its just so fantasically rediculous, it really makes me angry!
The problem is not just equipment per se, but more that the rebels have limited to no airpower. And aircraft are the easiest morale-breaker ever since WW2. Without aircraft, Gaddafi's forces are almost on a level playing field with the rebels as from the (admittedly, unreliable) reports, the rebels were doing ok in most skirmishes. As Abyssinia displayed oh so long ago, you can beat superior technology in the right circumstances.
Anyway, each day that passes the more I worry this is a terrible decsion by government. What happens when a UK pilot is shot down and captured? Are we going to leave them? As I keep saying, this can escalate very easily and now that we are involved its far more difficult to leave Libya alone.
I would have thought Iraq displayed how long, costly and questionably beneficial for the country foreign intervention is. It also raises questions why we are also not taking out the dictatorships present in the rest of Africa and the middle-east with their similar protests? Or are we slowly going to intervene in all these countries? Its just so fantasically rediculous, it really makes me angry!
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
We're not taking out a dictatorship. We're helping a popular movement that is trying to take out one, and that would be wholesale slaughtered.
If a pilot is shot down - in the unlikely instance a pilot is shot down - I imagine some spec ops teams are standing by just in case. SAS, JTF2, or SEALS/Deltas could get that done if needed.
We're not taking out a dictatorship. We're helping a popular movement that is trying to take out one, and that would be wholesale slaughtered.
If a pilot is shot down - in the unlikely instance a pilot is shot down - I imagine some spec ops teams are standing by just in case. SAS, JTF2, or SEALS/Deltas could get that done if needed.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
I don't think the involvement in Libya will take all that long. Let's stand back for a moment and consider the differences between Libya on the one hand and countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Somalia on the other: Libya is, technically speaking, a tiny country. Right, the size of the country is about as big as France and Germany put together (don't quote figures, it's an estimation based on a brief glance at a map), but something like three quarters or even more is pure, plain desert. The only part of the country that is hospitable is a narrow strip along the coastline that only actually goes a few kilometres inward in the Cyrenaica region, which is incidentally where Benghazi is located- i.e. it is in rebel hands. Add to that the fact that Libya has a mere five million people. There is virtually no possibility for insurgents or armies to withdraw to (except those bloody caves that Qaddafi actually fought a war over in the far, far south of the country, in the middle of the Sahara). The cities aren't very big either in general, so there is actually not very much to fight over. The country is also fairly prosperous and the people educated, so once Qaddafi is ousted, there is actually a pretty good chance they will be able to govern themselves without endless bloodshed like in Iraq. Libya also does not have the ethnic or sectarian division that the afoermentioned countries do. The only thing that really does need to be done is getting rid of Qaddafi and his loyal dogs.
I don't think the involvement in Libya will take all that long. Let's stand back for a moment and consider the differences between Libya on the one hand and countries like Iraq, Afghanistan or Somalia on the other: Libya is, technically speaking, a tiny country. Right, the size of the country is about as big as France and Germany put together (don't quote figures, it's an estimation based on a brief glance at a map), but something like three quarters or even more is pure, plain desert. The only part of the country that is hospitable is a narrow strip along the coastline that only actually goes a few kilometres inward in the Cyrenaica region, which is incidentally where Benghazi is located- i.e. it is in rebel hands. Add to that the fact that Libya has a mere five million people. There is virtually no possibility for insurgents or armies to withdraw to (except those bloody caves that Qaddafi actually fought a war over in the far, far south of the country, in the middle of the Sahara). The cities aren't very big either in general, so there is actually not very much to fight over. The country is also fairly prosperous and the people educated, so once Qaddafi is ousted, there is actually a pretty good chance they will be able to govern themselves without endless bloodshed like in Iraq. Libya also does not have the ethnic or sectarian division that the afoermentioned countries do. The only thing that really does need to be done is getting rid of Qaddafi and his loyal dogs.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
An examination of history shows us that Libya is not defender's territory. It is attacker's territory. By taking away Qaddafi's ability to attack, we have denied him of the strategic advantage. All we need to do now is establish communication with the rebels, and help them move their forces, and keep Qaddafi from being able to use armour and planes, and the rebels can finish the job.
Would a NATO armoured column get the job done faster? Of course. But the rebels have to do it on their own, with our assistance.
By the way, US is not expected to contribute much to the CAP phase of no fly zone. Only 4 countries have contributed to the Suppression of Air Defense section - USA, UK, France, and Canada.
An examination of history shows us that Libya is not defender's territory. It is attacker's territory. By taking away Qaddafi's ability to attack, we have denied him of the strategic advantage. All we need to do now is establish communication with the rebels, and help them move their forces, and keep Qaddafi from being able to use armour and planes, and the rebels can finish the job.
Would a NATO armoured column get the job done faster? Of course. But the rebels have to do it on their own, with our assistance.
By the way, US is not expected to contribute much to the CAP phase of no fly zone. Only 4 countries have contributed to the Suppression of Air Defense section - USA, UK, France, and Canada.
Ardius
Trooper
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
The key part is "helping". How far does helping go before we can stop and say "no we cannot help because its not our right to help this much". I fear that point doesn't appear to have a limit when it comes to "helping" countries overthrow their regimes. What if the rebels end up fighting indefinitely for many years to come? Are we going to spend the money and time policing the airspace indefinitely? How big is the temptation to meddle futher and speed up the process?
Sadly, I have to say I don't care so much for the plight of the Libyan people and more WTF my government is doing, I'm more annoyed at the unclear direction its taking running the country. I feel a little torn but mostly I feel we should sort our own situation out before we start trying to sort other people's shit out. I don't agree with leading this effort, I somewhat agree with doing something though I'm don't feel where we are heading is right and for the best. I'm also very unconvinced that merely taking away Gaddafi is going to solve all Libya's problems. Considering the rebels are made up of some of Gaddafi's own ex-supporters doesn't inspire much confidence.
I also feel its very optimistic to think this will be quick and short. Gaddafi might be mad, but he is not a moron and he knows very well how to make this last as long as possible. He won't make it easy.
LooseCannon said:
The key part is "helping". How far does helping go before we can stop and say "no we cannot help because its not our right to help this much". I fear that point doesn't appear to have a limit when it comes to "helping" countries overthrow their regimes. What if the rebels end up fighting indefinitely for many years to come? Are we going to spend the money and time policing the airspace indefinitely? How big is the temptation to meddle futher and speed up the process?
Sadly, I have to say I don't care so much for the plight of the Libyan people and more WTF my government is doing, I'm more annoyed at the unclear direction its taking running the country. I feel a little torn but mostly I feel we should sort our own situation out before we start trying to sort other people's shit out. I don't agree with leading this effort, I somewhat agree with doing something though I'm don't feel where we are heading is right and for the best. I'm also very unconvinced that merely taking away Gaddafi is going to solve all Libya's problems. Considering the rebels are made up of some of Gaddafi's own ex-supporters doesn't inspire much confidence.
I also feel its very optimistic to think this will be quick and short. Gaddafi might be mad, but he is not a moron and he knows very well how to make this last as long as possible. He won't make it easy.
Nigel Tufnel
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
We don't exactly know what form of government would replace Khaddafi if does go either. Would there be infighting among the rebels after Khaddafi goes? Would there be a peaceful transition of power?
We don't exactly know what form of government would replace Khaddafi if does go either. Would there be infighting among the rebels after Khaddafi goes? Would there be a peaceful transition of power?
bearfan
Ancient Mariner
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Where it gets tricky is if the govt forces just dig in in the major cities, we will not carpet bomb the cities and I doubt the rebels will be able to capture them even with air support ... perhaps not publicly but at least within NATO, they need to have in mind exactly how far we are willing to go to take out Quaddafi and if we are not willing to go far enough, I really question why we are there. I'd also like to see Italy more involved in this.
Where it gets tricky is if the govt forces just dig in in the major cities, we will not carpet bomb the cities and I doubt the rebels will be able to capture them even with air support ... perhaps not publicly but at least within NATO, they need to have in mind exactly how far we are willing to go to take out Quaddafi and if we are not willing to go far enough, I really question why we are there. I'd also like to see Italy more involved in this.
D
Deleted member 7164
Guest
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
No, and yes. AFAIK they went through an update program sometime in early 2000's. The new technology equals new air to ground munitions, targeting pods and illuminators. It's still not 21st century tech since those upgrades belong to 90's engineering (Litenting targeting pod, Marconi navigation system...). The main avionics systems, albeit refurbished, are unchanged. Such as main radar and powerplant.
Your F-16s are 80's tech base coupled with some 90's weapons and auxillary systems. Don't be surprised - a lot of modern air forces operate same stuff. No-one operates full 21st century hardware, not until Sukhoi T-50 or F-35 Lightning II reach field status. The only that come close, and that's late 90's tech, are F-22 Raptor @ USA, Su-35BM @ Russia, Su-30MKI @ India and all EF2000 Typhoon operators.
No, and yes. AFAIK they went through an update program sometime in early 2000's. The new technology equals new air to ground munitions, targeting pods and illuminators. It's still not 21st century tech since those upgrades belong to 90's engineering (Litenting targeting pod, Marconi navigation system...). The main avionics systems, albeit refurbished, are unchanged. Such as main radar and powerplant.
Your F-16s are 80's tech base coupled with some 90's weapons and auxillary systems. Don't be surprised - a lot of modern air forces operate same stuff. No-one operates full 21st century hardware, not until Sukhoi T-50 or F-35 Lightning II reach field status. The only that come close, and that's late 90's tech, are F-22 Raptor @ USA, Su-35BM @ Russia, Su-30MKI @ India and all EF2000 Typhoon operators.
Ardius
Trooper
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
Perhaps better for a different thread, but I'm interested to know which aircraft has been the longest serving and still updated to modern standards throughout its use. I know that WW2 Mustangs and Spitfires served long after the 1930s when they were originally developed and saw several updates. Its odd to think that the Harrier is so old, originally from the 1960s (and a design idea from the 1950s) its still in service in some airforces and is still updated. I'd probably go with the Harrier, I'd guess maybe a MiG-21 or MiG-19 but they were only continued as licensed copies rather than modernised updates.
Perhaps better for a different thread, but I'm interested to know which aircraft has been the longest serving and still updated to modern standards throughout its use. I know that WW2 Mustangs and Spitfires served long after the 1930s when they were originally developed and saw several updates. Its odd to think that the Harrier is so old, originally from the 1960s (and a design idea from the 1950s) its still in service in some airforces and is still updated. I'd probably go with the Harrier, I'd guess maybe a MiG-21 or MiG-19 but they were only continued as licensed copies rather than modernised updates.
Re: Allied Forces at War with Libyan Regime
B-52? Maybe the EE Canberra?
B-52? Maybe the EE Canberra?