The Civil War in Libya
- Thread starter solarz
- Start date
MwRYum
Major
That's because everyone thought the Facebook Revolution can topple anything...but not when the rulers throw in serious firepower to smash the loosely organized rebellion.
Mark my word: unless NATO can put a JDAM right on top of Qaddafi's head and wipe him out in one shot, or whatever that'd produce the same result (which would require a far greater commitment by NATO), this half-baked rebellion will fail in the end.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
You have to be wary every time you hear things like 'days and weeks' as wars never ever fits neatly with a poltically set time table. You also seriously doubt the level of commitment and degree of preparation when such comments are made.
No matter how capable your forces are, if you underestimate an enemy and commit half-heartedly to war, you always run the risk of defeat and humiliation.
If NATO had not been prancing about with the whole acting impartial charade (that even a kid can see through) and declared toppling Qaddafi as the goal from the get go, and sent in ground forces (they could easily get around the 'no occupation' clause by claiming it was a 'liberation' army that will pull out as soon as Qaddafi is gone) instead of pinning all their hopes on the rebel rabble miraculously getting their act together, this war would almost certainly be over by now.
All NATO ground forces need to do is punch through the hopelessly outmatched Libyan army and allow the rebels to get into Tripoli. The rebels can do all the dirty work of the street fighting, with NATO Specfor units stepping in if they get bogged down by pockets of resistance. Once they get Qaddafi and cut the head, the rest of his forces will fall in line and surrender. Especially if they know there are western forces on the ground to make sure they don't all just get executed if they gave up their guns.
I am sure one of the main reasons why so many men are still fighting so hard for Qaddafi instead of surrendering at the first opportunity is because of a fear of what might happen to them after they give up their guns. And the rebels and NATO have not helped their cause at all with all this propaganda BS about ordered rapes and not pressure the rebels at all about transparency about POWs.
Has NATO even gone on the record demanding captured Qaddafi supports are well treated by the rebels?
Hubris, arrogancance, misplaced idealism and and a wilful disregard for the concerns and interests of the pro Qaddafi forces has doom this war and the future of Libya to long hard years of violence at best, and potentially stalemate and a division of the country or sectarian violance at worst.
If NATO were not so full of themselves and took a page out of China's playbook from the Chinese civil war on how to re-assure press ganged men to surrender and defect instead of fighting for their lives, the war would have gone very differently even without foreign boots on the ground.
It is truely amazing how many times the same powers can use the same plan and still be shocked when the results remain exactly the same as the last time they tried it. Maybe they should look up what the definition of 'insanity' is.
MwRYum
Major
With adequate adaptations, the Powell Doctrine can apply to all countries, but most politicians would choose to ignore it, especially those who has elections coming.
- Is a vital national security interest threatened?
- Do we have a clear attainable objective?
- Have the risks and costs been fully and frankly analyzed?
- Have all other non-violent policy means been fully exhausted?
- Is there a plausible exit strategy to avoid endless entanglement?
- Have the consequences of our action been fully considered?
- Is the action supported by the American people?
- Do we have genuine broad international support?
Now let's see how many of the doctrine not followed...
There are a few problems with your alternative. To begin with this procedure is contrary to the Resolution of the Security Council and a Resolution that would have covered it would have been vetoed. Next it is a repeat of the recent Gulf War that lead to civil war in Iraq. Then the lot to be installed as government is likely to be criminal and incompetent as the NATO installed government of Kosovo.
All your other remarks seem to entirely correct. The result would have been another failed state.
plawolf
Lieutenant General
I'm not saying that that would have been the morally right thing to do, merely that it would have been the tactically sound thing to do from NATO's POV.
As for needing a new resolution, well again, if they wanted to send in ground troops, they could have found some half baked lawyer to argue that the UN resolution only banned an occupation force, so if the ground troops left right after the war, its not occupation or something.
That might not be water tight, but is certainly infinitely more convincing them Obama trying to argue that bombing the crap out of another country is not 'hostilities'. If that was the case, surely the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor would also qualify as whatever the hell he calls this war.
It is a sad reality of western military adventurism that western leaders and their war mongering cheerleaders in the media knows that so long as western lives are not lost in any numbers, their population will not be concerned enough about wars of choice to seriously threaten their political standing regardless of how right it was to go to war (up to a point, of course).
But that seemed to have become something of a double edged sword for western leaders, because while they and their war mongering cheerleaders in the media could start a war with little enough opposition at home, they know how shaky their position is, and so often impose unreasonable political restrictions on their militaries in how to prosecute the war that their efforts are almost doomed to failure from the start bar minor miracles.
All this emphasis on 'days and weeks', no 'boots on the ground', and going in 'to prevent a massacre only and not about regime change' are all for the home audience so they would not seriously object to the involvement.
The idea is that once the military is committed, they can mission creep their way to their ultimate objective and by then it would be too late to object and critics can be brushed away as being 'disloyal' and 'not supporting the troops', and all will be ok if they win as the history books are written by the victors, and nobody back home would care all that much about trying to find fault with a sweeping victory.
Of course I guess Gaddafi's forces not just falling to their knees at the awesome power of western military might was a bit of a surprise, as is the inability of modern air power to deliver a decisive blow to basically defenseless ground targets.
Maybe they will get the ICC to indite him for being a poor sport as well.
As for needing a new resolution, well again, if they wanted to send in ground troops, they could have found some half baked lawyer to argue that the UN resolution only banned an occupation force, so if the ground troops left right after the war, its not occupation or something.
That might not be water tight, but is certainly infinitely more convincing them Obama trying to argue that bombing the crap out of another country is not 'hostilities'. If that was the case, surely the Japanese attack on Pearl harbor would also qualify as whatever the hell he calls this war.
It is a sad reality of western military adventurism that western leaders and their war mongering cheerleaders in the media knows that so long as western lives are not lost in any numbers, their population will not be concerned enough about wars of choice to seriously threaten their political standing regardless of how right it was to go to war (up to a point, of course).
But that seemed to have become something of a double edged sword for western leaders, because while they and their war mongering cheerleaders in the media could start a war with little enough opposition at home, they know how shaky their position is, and so often impose unreasonable political restrictions on their militaries in how to prosecute the war that their efforts are almost doomed to failure from the start bar minor miracles.
All this emphasis on 'days and weeks', no 'boots on the ground', and going in 'to prevent a massacre only and not about regime change' are all for the home audience so they would not seriously object to the involvement.
The idea is that once the military is committed, they can mission creep their way to their ultimate objective and by then it would be too late to object and critics can be brushed away as being 'disloyal' and 'not supporting the troops', and all will be ok if they win as the history books are written by the victors, and nobody back home would care all that much about trying to find fault with a sweeping victory.
Of course I guess Gaddafi's forces not just falling to their knees at the awesome power of western military might was a bit of a surprise, as is the inability of modern air power to deliver a decisive blow to basically defenseless ground targets.
Maybe they will get the ICC to indite him for being a poor sport as well.
James M. Dorsey, formerly of The Wall Street Journal, now a senior researcher at the National University of Singapore’s Middle East Institute, writes on the website of Al Arabiya:
If Libya threatens to become a no-win for NATO, for China and Russia it’s a win-win
(
If Libya threatens to become a no-win for NATO, for China and Russia it’s a win-win
(
Last edited: