OT: Mr. Obama's War has Started

[dragoon500ly]

Well, at a time when he is keeping his promise to wind down the war in Iraq, President Obama has decided to join the European Union in a series of strikes against Libya. The first of 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles were launched at 20 Libyan military sites along the Med coast.

France has joined in with overflights of a rebel stronghold and there are reports that a Libyan fighter was shot down by a French fighter, the talking heads are all broadcasting different stories on that one...

Looks like 2011 is going to be a very intresting year!

[pmulcahy11b]

A no-fly zone is largely symbolic, perhaps even useless. Khadaffi can defeat the rebels with ground forces alone. The only way we can really help the rebels and prevent a massacre is to attack Khadaffi's army before they can get into Benghazi. We really dithered around too much about doing this -- a no-fly zone and ground strikes should have started about a week ago, while the rebels were on the rise. The rebels are almost defeated now, and a no-fly zone isn't going to do more than perhaps being a morale-booster.

[perardua]

French forces have already been reported as having destroyed four Libyan armoured vehicles and bombed Libyan military bases, in addition to the British/US cruise missile strikes.

[Webstral]

Elected governments have trouble moving decisively.

[Grimace]

Yeah, I have a feeling the whole thing is too late for the rebels. Lots of feet dragging when over two weeks ago I was seeing news footage from the AP where Libyan rebels were saying they needed training and a way to stop the Libyan air force. This was back when they controlled 2/3 of Libya. Now they're down to just a couple of towns left.

[dragoon500ly]

To be sure, I really don't belive that a no-fly zone is going to stop the good Colonel one bit. One of the Swiss news agencies that I watch is talking about a ceasefire between the loyalist and the rebels...their talking head had a good one, "It is not in Colonel Khadaffi's intrests to agree to a cease-fire."

If NATO/European Union is serious about stopping this, then it means committing troops as peacekeepers. I don't believe that the political will exists to do this.

At least not yet.

[Abbott Shaull]

What a joke, yet we let the ACC use their force to calm stop the people for protesting in Country where the US Central Command has staging and command & control assets in as well as the military units are coming from other US backed allies.

Talk about you double standard.

Now back to the about the good old Colonel. Well, yeah anything short of UN/EU/US grounds units being sent into Libya, the rebels don't stand a chance. Which I will find more ironic is the fact that we have left this lunatic in charge, much for the same reason one was left in power in Iraq. We knew what we were dealing with them left in charge. The most worrisome thing is after he gone, who will fill the power vacuum.

One of the problems again, is the good Colonel is no idiot. He realizes at this point and time many of the nation who could send military into region to slap his hands don't have the assets available to do so. Even with the US draw down in Iraq we only shifted more to Afghanistan. Libya, Iran, and North Korea all know that for all the talk the UN/US/EU/NATO and what other alphabet soup organization may put out there. They realize since the fall of the Soviet Union many of these place have cut their military deep. Even during the 1980s as the US was going through military build up of sorts, many of her allies had started the military downgrade.

So basically if we do go into Libya, Afghanistan becomes second banana. With the reports I have seen from Afghanistan, I am beginning to wonder what it will actually take to win there. Even with the build up with NATO and more US Troops the Taliban seem to be still strong in parts of Afghanistan and Pakistan now. By all accounts they are getting stronger, not any weaker. Then their is the concern that Bin Laden and many of his supporters are still alive and active in the border region too. As long as keep taking away emphasis on hunting down Bin Laden and his group, we are allowing them to win in the eyes of the people who support them. *shrug*

getting off my soap box.

It took several years for US, UK and and allies who helped to stabilize Iraq, for what passes as stabilized government. *Shrug*

[Cdnwolf]

I love the fact that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain and the government is using the military to crack down on protesters but you dont hear the UN complaining there? And where were the Tomahawks and No Fly zone when China cracked down in Tiananmen Square?

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by Cdnwolf

I love the fact that the exact same thing is happening in Bahrain and the government is using the military to crack down on protesters but you dont hear the UN complaining there? And where were the Tomahawks and No Fly zone when China cracked down in Tiananmen Square?

Like I said it interesting that Central Command has assets based there so of course we turning a blind eye to it. *Shrug*

[Raellus]

For the U.S., it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we don't support Libya, we lose popular support in the region (public opinion in Tunisia & Egypt seems to favor the NFZ and the Arab Legue voted unanimously to support an NFZ [w/ two contries abstaining]). If we do though, we look like warmongering hypocrits to the rest of the world. I'm sure that Bin Laden is going to have a field day with this.

I get the impression that the French were pushing really hard for this no fly zone. It's good to see that they are actually doing some of the heavy lifting this time around.

If the NATO air assets target Libyan armor and artillery (and there is some indication that they have already begun to do so), it could start to swing the fighting back in favor of the rebels.

Also, I heard today on NPR that the Libyan fighter shot down yesterday (a rather dramatic pic of it going down in flames was all over the web) was a rebel plane attempting to defend Bengazi that was mistakenly shot down by the rebels.

[95th Rifleman]

I thought Bosnia proved how useless a no-fly zone really is. the buggers just painted red crosses on their transport helos and kept moving troops in to massacre the civvies.

You need boots on the ground to conduct any kind of war. Since Gulf 91 politicians have this idea that all you need is air strikes.

[Legbreaker]

I see a difference between Libya and Bahrain:
Libya is basically a civil war with the current dictator well known for his "casual" attitude towards civil rights.
Bahrain on the other hand is not a civil war. Yes, it's a rather heavy handed use of military force, but it's not a shooting war like Libya.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I thought Bosnia proved how useless a no-fly zone really is. the buggers just painted red crosses on their transport helos and kept moving troops in to massacre the civvies.

You need boots on the ground to conduct any kind of war. Since Gulf 91 politicians have this idea that all you need is air strikes.

Well they did get spoiled with the success of that 6 week Air campaign didn't they...

[pmulcahy11b]

Originally Posted by Raellus

For the U.S., it's damned if you do, damned if you don't. If we don't support Libya, we lose popular support in the region (public opinion in Tunisia & Egypt seems to favor the NFZ and the Arab Legue voted unanimously to support an NFZ [w/ two contries abstaining]). If we do though, we look like warmongering hypocrits to the rest of the world. I'm sure that Bin Laden is going to have a field day with this.

The simple fact is that we have to go full on and take Kaddaffi out of power now. We need to attack his troops, and basically become the rebel's air force. If the rebels lose the war, then our actions will make us look impotent and, well, stupid.

[Abbott Shaull]

Originally Posted by pmulcahy11b

The simple fact is that we have to go full on and take Kaddaffi out of power now. We need to attack his troops, and basically become the rebel's air force. If the rebels lose the war, then our actions will make us look impotent and, well, stupid.

You are right Paul, we do have to eventually put boots on the ground if we want to show that we are backing the rebels. The main thing is where are they goign to find the force to to move over there....

[Legbreaker]

Of course Obama has ruled US boots on the ground out of the question...

Which begs the question, who else can fill the void? I'm thinking France is placed well....

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

I thought Bosnia proved how useless a no-fly zone really is. the buggers just painted red crosses on their transport helos and kept moving troops in to massacre the civvies.

The pressure of the air campaign against Serbia in '99 eventually led to their withdrawal from Kosovo and the end of the Balkan Wars of the '90s.

[95th Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Raellus

The pressure of the air campaign against Serbia in '99 eventually led to their withdrawal from Kosovo and the end of the Balkan Wars of the '90s.

The key word is "eventualy".

I'm not saying air power isn't effective but it does not solve these kinds of Humanitarian crises. How many civvies where butchered while we where merrily blowing up air defences and such in Bosnia?

The no fly zone let Saddam butcher his own folks for a DECADE before the 2nd war kicked off in 2003.

No fly zones on their own do not solve these problems but allow politicans the illusion of doing something.

[Ramjam]

If there must be outside boots on the ground than they must be arab and only in a peace keeping role.
If NATO troops go in there than it would be Iraq all over again and the Arab world will turn against us even more than they have at the moment.
You might get away with sending in Turk troops if NATO really wants to send troops but with the problems they are having with the Kurds I very much doubt we will see them offering any.
Support the rebels with SF and air power etc, but at the end of the day they have to fight the fight. All we are doing is leveling the playing field.

[dragoon500ly]

Originally Posted by Ramjam

If there must be outside boots on the ground than they must be arab and only in a peace keeping role.
If NATO troops go in there than it would be Iraq all over again and the Arab world will turn against us even more than they have at the moment.
You might get away with sending in Turk troops if NATO really wants to send troops but with the problems they are having with the Kurds I very much doubt we will see them offering any.
Support the rebels with SF and air power etc, but at the end of the day they have to fight the fight. All we are doing is leveling the playing field.

Doubtful that the Arab League is going to support troops. The other major Arab power is Egypt, and the good Colonel would just love to have Egyptians "invade" Libya; it would almost be as good a propaganda tool as having the US/UK send in a couple of brigades. As for the Italians, they last thing they want is their troops in Libya.

Based on what I'm hearing on the news, I feel that the political will to commit troops in any kind of role just isn't there.

[Webstral]

The whole situation is a pickle, to be sure. It would be nice to come up with a ground force that could give the rebels the winning edge in Libya, but I’m at a loss as to who will provide that force. If we were to think outside the box, we might try to get India to send some troops. India has a Muslim population that participates in a democracy. India is hardly a Western imperial power. There are some good reasons why India would not want to participate, though.

Webstral

[95th Rifleman]

Keep an eye on the French. they have been in front with all this almost from kick-off and have to date been the only nation to recognise the rebels.

I'm expecting French legion "peacekeepers" at some point.

[Legbreaker]

Seems to me the French are probably the logical nation to supply the bulk of any ground troops. I can't think of any other major entanglements they've got at the moment, they have a history of troops in north Africa, and it's just a hop across the Med for them. Yes, there are plenty of reasons why they might not be the best fit, but they're probably the only force available in sufficient strength.
I'm sure they'd also love to secure the oil fields at some point to guarantee supply back home...

[Raellus]

Originally Posted by 95th Rifleman

The key word is "eventualy".

About a year? Not bad considering all that came before. No, the air campaign against Serbia was not quite as clean as that launched against Saddam in '91, but it got results. Milosovic was out of office a year or two later and the Balkans have been relatively peaceful since. IIRC, the only ground forces committed were a UN peacekeeping force.

Aside from a few SF types, I doubt that we'll see Americans on the ground in Libya. We're too strung out as it is and we don't have a good history there (..."to the shores of Tripoli"...). Logistically and militarily speaking, France would be the logical choice but their colonial history in the region might rub many in the region the wrong way.

[Graebarde]

de ja vue? Seems there was similar actions back about what 25 years ago? Let'em kill each other off, and let allie sort 'em out. If the Arabs want him out, let THEM do it, of course they won't becaues they'll get their a$$ kicked.. they already are waffling on actions taken... best thing to do to the whole fkn region is turn it into a giant mirror.. from the atlantic to the himalayas... you can rebore through glass can't you?

[Targan]

Originally Posted by Graebarde

de ja vue? Seems there was similar actions back about what 25 years ago? Let'em kill each other off, and let allie sort 'em out. If the Arabs want him out, let THEM do it, of course they won't becaues they'll get their a$$ kicked.. they already are waffling on actions taken... best thing to do to the whole fkn region is turn it into a giant mirror.. from the atlantic to the himalayas... you can rebore through glass can't you?

Having a bad day Grae? Funny, I thought you were more of a "people person" than that

Seriously though, this is a discussion about a real-life situation that is still unfolding. Probably best not to suggest carpet-nuking large tracts of North Africa and the Middle East, it might be a tad offensive to some people, yeah?

[HorseSoldier]

Aside from a few SF types, I doubt that we'll see Americans on the ground in Libya. We're too strung out as it is and we don't have a good history there (..."to the shores of Tripoli"...). Logistically and militarily speaking, France would be the logical choice but their colonial history in the region might rub many in the region the wrong way.

Rather more recently than the Marines going ashore 200 years ago, Wheelus AFB was a substantial base outside Tripoli in operation for thirty years and change, from mid-WW2 until Khadafi took power and ejected us. My understanding is that the US base was not especially unpopular prior to the ejection.

Of course that was in 1969 or 70, and there's been substantial water under the bridge since then, with the current Libyan population mostly not knowing anything but life under Khadafi's regime and propaganda machine.

[Graebarde]

Originally Posted by Targan

Having a bad day Grae? Funny, I thought you were more of a "people person" than that

Seriously though, this is a discussion about a real-life situation that is still unfolding. Probably best not to suggest carpet-nuking large tracts of North Africa and the Middle East, it might be a tad offensive to some people, yeah?

People person? Me? Yeah I have my moments. And you're probably right, but it's what I've said since the 80's at least, so why change to the warm fuzzy PC BS now.. they say you can't teach an old dawg new tricks..

See where we lost our first bird overnight. At least we didn't loose the jocky's, but it's only a matter of time before the golden bullet finds one of them, sorry to say. In harms way for no good reason.

[Targan]

Originally Posted by HorseSoldier

Rather more recently than the Marines going ashore 200 years ago, Wheelus AFB was a substantial base outside Tripoli in operation for thirty years and change, from mid-WW2 until Khadafi took power and ejected us. My understanding is that the US base was not especially unpopular prior to the ejection.

I first learned about the existance of Wheelus AFB when I read a great novel about terrorists who captured a civilian airliner full of US citizens and held them hostage after landing them at Wheelus. The most memorable thing about the novel for me was that it was the first time I ever learned about the M551 Sheridan. In the novel a US joint ops mission is sent in to rescue the hostages. They have to defeat Libyan Army forces who are on the base tacitly defending the terrorists so USN SEALs are sent in to rescue the hostages backed up by Sheridans dropped in from cargo aircraft at extremely low altitude over the runways on that cool collapsing pallet/parachute system they used to have.

I know this novel probably sounds excellent to Paul and others. I'm really sorry but I can't remember the author or the title. I'll try using my Google-Fu to find it.

[Rainbow Six]

Originally Posted by Targan

I first learned about the existance of Wheelus AFB when I read a great novel about terrorists who captured a civilian airliner full of US citizens and held them hostage after landing them at Wheelus. The most memorable thing about the novel for me was that it was the first time I ever learned about the M551 Sheridan. In the novel a US joint ops mission is sent in to rescue the hostages. They have to defeat Libyan Army forces who are on the base tacitly defending the terrorists so USN SEALs are sent in to rescue the hostages backed up by Sheridans dropped in from cargo aircraft at extremely low altitude over the runways on that cool collapsing pallet/parachute system they used to have.

I know this novel probably sounds excellent to Paul and others. I'm really sorry but I can't remember the author or the title. I'll try using my Google-Fu to find it.

I read that book about twenty years ago but can't recall the author / title either. It was a cracking good read. IIRC the US Commander was a native American named Rufus Loonfeather (or something like that)?