The Civil War in Libya

Hurry up!

I only care about strategic results.

In my view, it does not matter whether Qaddafi or the rebels (e.g. Muslim Brotherhood) win. I just want them to hurry up. The restoration of Libyan oil to the world market is important to lower the gas price that I pay at the pump.

The nightmare scenario is when Qaddafi and the rebels take months or years to resolve the Libyan civil war. My wallet will surrender unconditionally from exhaustion.

----------

In case anyone is in denial about the Muslim Brotherhood's organization and reach in Arab countries, please note that the Muslim Brotherhood has already chalked up a win in Egypt.

From the Wall Street Journal:



"The Libya Mission Was 'Never About Regime Change'
MARCH 27, 2011
...
More Gates optimism. Is it justified? Al Qaeda has never lacked for excuses, or recruits, to mount terrorist attacks, whether against despotisms or democracies. In Egypt, last week's referendum on a package of constitutional reforms that pave the way toward early parliamentary and presidential elections was a huge win for the Muslim Brotherhood, which stands to gain from going to the polls before its secular opponents can organize. The Iranian "political model" may be out of vogue on the Arab street, but that doesn't mean that all of Tehran's regional ventures—including support for Hamas in Gaza and Hezbollah in Lebanon—are unsuccessful or unpopular."

Re: Hurry up!

Well that is what you hope. Too bad the situation for Libya is that is a very tribal country and people does not obey order from a person in another tribe. I would expect continued war even after Qaddafi leaves.

Re: Hurry up!

It is about Regime Change, just look at the situation. The West is aiding the rebels by bombing Libya forces paving for the Rebels advance. It's that obvious... Reason - Khaddafi wanted to nationalized Libya Oil from Western oil companies since 2009.

Re: Hurry up!

mobydog said:

It is about Regime Change, just look at the situation. The West is aiding the rebels by bombing Libya forces paving for the Rebels advance. It's that obvious... Reason - Khaddafi wanted to nationalized Libya Oil from Western oil companies since 2009.

Click to expand...

That sounds a lot like a Pravda headline I came across recently......

Gaddafi is a strange fellow, but for the last several years he was happy to make friends with Europe and North America. I think it more likely that if the countries in question had wanted to stop nationalisation, they would have done a deal with him to stay out of the conflict.

But you are partially right. By stating that he will massacre anyone who he thinks might be disloyal if he/when he wins the war, Gaddafi has painted himself into a corner. So the only way this is realistically going to end (without an even greater tragedy that has already befallen the country) is when he dies or leaves Libya. The only way he would be able to restore order would be with the execution squad. The world cannot possibly tolerate this.

All I can say is well done David Cameron for having the cojones to suggest the no fly zone in the first place, even though being the first person to suggest it was to leave himself politically vulnerable.

North Korea Suggests Libya Should Have Kept Nuclear Program

This is a surprise consequence of the U.S.-led war on Libya. As nations all around the world watch the United States hammer Qaddafi, they are probably contemplating the acquisition of nuclear weapons to protect themselves from U.S. military intervention.

At a minimum, we can conclude that the North Koreans will not relinquish their nukes in exchange for U.S. assurances, which is the deal that Qaddafi accepted.



"North Korea Suggests Libya Should Have Kept Nuclear Program
By MARK McDONALD
Published: March 24, 2011

SEOUL, South Korea — A North Korean statement that Libya’s dismantling of its nuclear weapons program had made it vulnerable to military intervention by the West is being seen by analysts as an ominous reinforcement of the North’s refusal to end its own nuclear program.

North Korea’s official news agency carried comments this week from a Foreign Ministry official criticizing the air assault on Libyan government forces and suggesting that Libya had been duped in 2003 when it abandoned its nuclear program in exchange for promises of aid and improved relations with the West.

Calling the West’s bargain with Libya “an invasion tactic to disarm the country,” the official said it amounted to a bait and switch approach. “The Libyan crisis is teaching the international community a grave lesson,” the official was quoted as saying Tuesday, proclaiming that North Korea’s “songun” ideology of a powerful military was “proper in a thousand ways” and the only guarantor of peace on the Korean Peninsula.

As they have watched the attacks in Libya this week, senior North Korean leaders “must feel alarmed, but also deeply satisfied with themselves,” said Rüdiger Frank, an adjunct professor at Korea University and the University of North Korean Studies, writing on the Web site 38 North. North Korea is believed to have 8 to 12 nuclear weapons and last year disclosed a new uranium-enrichment plant.

Mr. Frank said that the Libyan situation was “at least the third instance in two decades that would seem to offer proof that they did something right while others failed and ultimately paid the price.” He said North Korea would probably see object lessons in the Soviet Union’s decision to end the arms race and to “abandon the political option to use their weapons of mass destruction,” and in Iraq’s agreement to accept United Nations nuclear inspectors and monitors. And now, Libya.

“To put it bluntly,” Mr. Frank said, “in the eyes of the North Korean leadership all three countries took the economic bait, foolishly disarmed themselves, and once they were defenseless, were mercilessly punished by the West.”

“It requires little imaginative power to see what conclusions will be drawn in Pyongyang,” he said, adding that anyone in the senior leadership who favored denuclearization “will now be silent.”

The United States said there was no link between Libya’s abandonment of efforts to develop nuclear arms and other weapons and the current military campaign by Western nations.

“Where they’re at today has absolutely no connection with them renouncing their nuclear program or nuclear weapons,” said Mark Toner, a State Department spokesman.

The comments by the anonymous North Korean official appeared to dim the chances for a renewal of the so-called six-party talks on the dismantling of North Korea’s atomic program. The talks ended in 2009 when North Korea withdrew, angry over international sanctions that followed a long-range missile test. The two Koreas, the United States, China, Russia and Japan are the participants in the six-party process, which began in 2003. China, North Korea’s only major ally, has served as the host country."

I think Obama played this one quite well diplomatically. His initial reluctance to get involved was totally appropriate; it assured that other countries would have to speak up and make meaningful contributions and prevented intervention from being painted as a solely American adventure, Iraq redux. And this is a bit callous, but he let combat go on long enough to assure that plenty of civilians got sprayed and no one had any doubt that Qaddafi is a bastard. That's how we arrived at this situation; Russia and China couldn't possibly block the resolution without looking really bad, and other nations are sharing the burden (and indeed will take more of it in coming days). Hopefully Qaddafi is toppled and the transition phase goes well. The international community really should leave it up to the Libyans aside from providing more hands-off type of assistance.

On the military side of things, we might see an interesting fight in Sirte. Sirte is the toughest target the rebels have yet come up against. It's heavily defended, I've seen estimates of 10,000 Qadaffi troops deployed there (although that might be a bit high) plus sympathetic locals, considering Sirte is the epicenter of Qaddafi's support in Libya. Most of Qaddafi's heavy equipment has been destroyed, and there's good reason to believe the government doesn't have much fuel to run what's left (big fuel shortages in Tripoli). Because of the coalition's ability to destroy tanks and artillery at will, Qaddafi's forces in both Sirte and Misrata seem to be operating with lighter equipment loads lately, riding in technicals like the rebels and making heavy use of mortars. They also seem to be borrowing a page from the North Vietnamese and getting close to the rebels and civilians, rather than relying on artillery to do most of the killing like they did in the first few weeks of fighting. Qaddafi forces assaulting Misrata seem to have made good use of this tactic. They still can't take the city though. Misrata has held out, wave after wave. It won't fall now, not after airstrikes and after the rebels have captured a lot of weapons. Like Stalingrad, Misrata seems to be something of a "Hero City". Here's a video of some standard street combat:



The US is going to start flights by A-10s and AC-130s, the two most badass CAS weapons in our arsenal. They can bring even more precise firepower to bear.
Now we'll have to see if the rebels can bring either A) get together enough men, fuel, ammo and equipment to grind down and capture Sirte, B) surround Sirte and continue on the highway to Misrata then Tripoli, or C) capture Sirte by convincing the garrison and/or local tribes to abandon Qaddafi.

bladerunner said:

Yup funny that, even some of her severest critics haven't been put off from going or living there.

Click to expand...

Actually it's a lot of fun to criticize/poke at the superpower United States. The U.S. is uber powerful that everyone chips in their two cents. "Popeye" is right that Chinese have to become accustomed to being criticized as well. It comes with the territory. When China becomes a lot stronger in about ten years, perhaps I'll poke some fun at her as well.

In the meantime, you should know that many Chinese are great admirers of the United States. However, Chinese have an audacious dream to surpass the world's mightiest power. You might ask, how do you do that? Well, landing a Han on Mars (e.g. first Homo Sapien to walk on a different planet; not a satellite or planetoid like the Moon) in the year 2050 would be a terrific way to highlight 5,000 years of glorious Chinese history.

Finn McCool said:

I think Obama played this one quite well diplomatically. His initial reluctance to get involved was totally appropriate; it assured that other countries would have to speak up and make meaningful contributions and prevented intervention from being painted as a solely American adventure, Iraq redux.

Click to expand...

Really? The opposite could be said that he almost spent too long dithering. Cameron was in danger of being shot down in flames, especially given that certain parts of the UK media want him to fail at whatever he does so were doing the best to say "Cameron isolated", "Cameron criticised for dangerous proposals", "no more Iraqs", etc. Obama was in danger of letting intervention fall by the way-side by expecting everyone else to make it happen.

Mr T said:

Really? The opposite could be said that he almost spent too long dithering. Cameron was in danger of being shot down in flames, especially given that certain parts of the UK media want him to fail at whatever he does so were doing the best to say "Cameron isolated", "Cameron criticised for dangerous proposals", "no more Iraqs", etc. Obama was in danger of letting intervention fall by the way-side by expecting everyone else to make it happen.

Click to expand...

Yes but that didn't happen. Patience is a virtue, and I think Obama picked a good, decisive moment to apply all of America's diplomatic energies to push through the resolution. If he had come out pushing for it on Day 1, it might not have gotten much Arab support, and the EU nations could have done what they normally do: let America fix the problem while scoring points for criticizing how America does it. By forcing others to speak out first and then sealing the dealing, Obama played this one quite well.

Finn McCool said:

Yes but that didn't happen. Patience is a virtue, and I think Obama picked a good, decisive moment to apply all of America's diplomatic energies to push through the resolution. If he had come out pushing for it on Day 1, it might not have gotten much Arab support, and the EU nations could have done what they normally do: let America fix the problem while scoring points for criticizing how America does it. By forcing others to speak out first and then sealing the dealing, Obama played this one quite well.

Click to expand...

I think it's way too early to say that. Even if Qaddafi falls, which he might if the arms embargo is kept effective, there is nothing that says the rebels will form a stable government in Libya. In fact, there is a very real danger that it will fall into in-fighting and turn into a failed state like Somalia.

Of course, the difference is that Libya is a key oil producer, so we will definitely see some foreign intervention when/if that happens.

The point is, I think Obama, or the rest of the USA, is going to regret helping the Libyan rebels some years down the road...