Reported widely today is the ongoing discussions on possible military action in Libya. A No fly zone seems the easiest option and one which which is gathering support. Some of the loudest calls for action are coming from an alliance of left wing interventionists who have obviously forgot the lessons of Iraq and the Balkans and indeed their opposition to them. Indeed the parallels between Libya and Iraq are striking, both are nations with a despotic dictator and both have had a brush with defeat. Yet as Sadam, post Desert Storm, was widely predicted to go down ‘in weeks’ it would seem Gaddafi is also widely predicted to go soon but has decided not to grant everyones wishes, ever indication is that he is going to hang on as long as possible.
The Libyan opposition movement in the east of the country would seem on the face of it to be disorganised, lacking in training and bereft of heavy weapons and aircraft.
Who knows what will happen, events might surprise us and Gaddafi could go soon or he could just decide a protracted civil war is his bet bet, against the lightly armed opposition, he might even be able to prevail. With news coming out of Libya that government forces have retaken Ras Lanuf the military momentum is clearly with Gaddafi.
The NATO meeting today was preceded by Secretary General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, saying;
“Any operation we undertake needs to respect three key principles: firstly there has to be demonstrable need for NATO action, secondly there has to be a clear legal basis, and thirdly there has to be firm regional support,” he said, as NATO defence ministers met to discuss options to respond to the turmoil in Libya, including a possible no-fly zone”
I suspect NATO will continue planning for a no fly zone, increase stand off air and maritime capabilities but do nothing without a UN resolution.
Speaking on the BBC’s Radio 4 Today programme this morning, Dr Fox explained the principles under which a no-fly zone over Libya could be implemented:
“We’ve set out three principles that the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary have made very clear, the first is that there would have to be a demonstrable need for a no-fly zone, the second would be that there was a strong legal basis for it, and third, that there is broad international regional support.
“I think it’s very easy to see the difficulties that there would be were we not to have our countries involved in any such operation. But I think it’s also fair to say that today’s meeting of NATO Defence Ministers is to look at all the options; it’s not there to take decisions on launching any specific operations.”
So that sounds like talks about talks about what we might possibly or possibly not do, maybe some time in the future.
I am with Lord Dannatt on this one, in the Telegraph today he said
I think just talking about a no-fly zone – Robert Gates in the United States said that was rather loose talk. I think it is fairly loose talk. We need to be quite clear what our national interest is as far as Libya is concerned.
Previous no fly zones have not been terribly effective, mostly just prolonging conflicts but there is one principle that Dr Fox and other’s seem to have forgotten in the rush to ‘get their gun on’ and it is this
What is the UK’s interest here
Have we really learned nothing from the vanity and hubris of Blair, putting service personnel in harms way, the same personnel the government is making redundant etc, so politicians can puff out their chests and bask in a bit of uniform love?
I think our national interests are as follows:
1) Our oil prices need to drop to stop a double dip recession
2) We need to reduce the number of North African refugees entering Europe as a good percentage will end up in the UK
3) We need to retain what little influence we have left after blundering in with public commendation of Gaddafi. Now we need Gaddafi to go, and I reckon a Gaddafi win could bring down the Coalition. Not that I am especially pro-Coalition, but I am anti looking like idiots, and that is what we will end up looking like if we do nothing.
As to how best deal with it I do have one idea.
Drop the no-fly zone, it is a sticking plaster designed to appease our collective guilt.
Instead my plan would be as follows.
Step 1 – set up naval blockade to stop weapons getting into Western Libya
Step 2 – funnel all of the frozen Libyan assets to the rebel’s in Benghazi, and use some of this money to buy ammo, food, water and medicines and ship to them. Also share all our real time intelligence with them, hopefully this will allow them to counter Gaddafi’s forces. See if we can shore up Eastern Libyan for 6 – 9 months.
Step 3 – set up in Egypt or some other nearby country a Free Libyan Legion, provide free flights for volunteers from Europe to join, and ship young men from Libya who want training to the legion, possible offer a very large (by Libyan standards) lump sum and turn a blind eye to the nationality of who takes up the offer. Train the Legion as a light mechanised infantry battalion, using Russian military surplus IFV and APC’s, plus a good number of support vehicles and personnel (such as recovery vehicles, fuel tankers, supply tracks and light patrol vehicles), once trained up, ship to Benghazi, with a cadre of Egyptian advisers and allow them to fight their way to Tripoli. This assumes that my limited understanding is correct, that fighting will mostly be urban, and that IVF and APC’s, with the infantry well supplied with anti-tank missiles and MANPAD’s is the best way to crack Tripoli, and the key will be a professional force with the logistics train to fight their way from Benghazi to Tripoli.
Sure it is expensive, but I better it is cheaper in the long run than a no-fly zone followed by a ground campaign when it becomes clear that the Rebels could not organise a tea party in a tetley’s factory (I avoided using the phrase a p!ss up in a brewery as I did not want to cause any offence
)
Tubby,
Excellent comment. Should be a sort of reply post unto itself. Your last point is more or less what happened with the West in Croatia and Slovenia and, to a lesser and messier degree, in Bosnia-Herzcegovina itself. Beyond recruiting and training Libyans I do wonder sometimes where, to borrow the American name for them, the Abraham Lincoln Brigades are in these cases (there were *harrumph* more working-class Brits fighting for the Spanish Republic than Americans, but both contributed. And that’s me as a lefty, wondering when the comment-but-don’t-act usual left-suspects and the frothing neo-con foreign policy fundamentalists will both enlist in the cause now there are actual bullets flying ….) But it seems to me that these are answers that involve a prolonged conflict, which means more dirty deals and maneuvering within the resistance, more time to build up grudges, more martyrs on both sides, etc. That leaves the international community, whatever it is anymore, with an unpleasant reality. Trying Gaddafi and his senior sons (the top three, no one takes Hannibal seriously — no, seriously, Hannibal Gaddafi. Truth is always stranger than fiction) in the ICC has a nice ring, and getting them to step down to some Venezuelan hacienda would do in practice. But neither is on the cards. This is what police in most English-speaking countries would call an “active shooter” situation, where the crime is in progress and in no danger of stopping because your perpetrator says “it’s a fair cop.” What no one in power wants done, because of its legal and policy implications, and the only thing that would speed this process up to prevent more blood and grudges (concentrating minds on Libyan reconstruction) and that would ultimately leave Libyans in control of their destiny is this:
- Go in
- Kill Gaddafi and his senior sons: I don’t mean with drones, they have ADA and can hide, I don’t mean Day-of-the-Jackal style he’s dodged that for 40 years, I mean a couple of reinforced brigades of door-kickers brought in to their bunkers and some full-jacketed rounds in the center of mass.
- Then GET OUT on your landing craft/helos/whatever and leave Libyans to settle their own affairs. Yes, in twenty-odd years when you have a new generation that don’t remember the Revoluation of 2011 some of them may buy the lie that Gaddafi was a martyr to imperialism. There are people in Ireland and the UK trying to whitewash McGuinness’ years with the Provos, and people in the American Deep South trying to get Nathan Bedford Forrest’s name (founder of the Ku Klux Klan and Confederate cavalryman) on a license plate. The point is that swift action now gives a generation to build institutions and narratives that can combat that kind of nonsense. So, as the US Defence Secretary Gates put it (with a condescending Victorian reference …) no school-building by soldiers, no tea-sipping. Do something professional militaries are equipped to do. Get in, kill a target, go home. Beyond that does more harm than good. Feel-good action that’s not that decisive is even more destructive than that. (With the exception of some of what Tubby describes, if you’re willing to accept the long-war solution. And what Tubby’s offered up as a hell of a lot more useful than most of what’s publicly been kicked around in Brussels.) Now if someone can shut that school-tie t**t Cameron up before he disgraces Britain’s foreign-policy nous even further ….
Tubby,
Love both the references at the end. And based on BBC, CBC, and CNN (footage from all three) that seems about right.
I think the operation we undertook in Afghanistan prior to our movement to helmand maybe an appropriate model for Libyan involvement however the great reluctance of the rebels for any foreign ground troops in Libya may mean we are tied to an operation more like that taken with Iraq between the 2 wars but with the intensity when we set up the Kurdish safe heaven, perhaps in the east around Benghazi to start with.
You couldn’t make this up even if you were writing a comedy!
10 Mar 20:43
Two spy planes due to have been scrapped at the end of March are now to be kept in service for at least another three months, the BBC has learnt.
The Ministry of Defence has declined to comment on whether the decision is related to discussions on setting up a no-fly zone over Libya.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-12707222
@ Jackstaff,
I did read a potted summary on ARRSE of a longer blog post by some US staff officers which seemed to suggest what you are advocating. Basically pull together every helicopter, carrier and special forces & commando forces you can scrape together. Use the helicopters to insert your forces, slot Gaddafi and then fight your way to the port to be extracted. Not sure what the body count would be on either side, but I expect it is political unacceptable which is why I did not suggest, not to mention that I think we could just about get the Rebel’s to accept raising their own intervention forces, if we slot Gaddafi we likely cause the same resentment.
Wstr
It seems the powers that be have just realize that strategic manned ISTAR assets gives them the information they need to make decisions weres that big light bulb when you need one.
Also there it was reported yesterday that 3 awacs and a couple of tankers have been deployed to cyprus for air monitoring. With these assets deployed to libya I wonder what assets are covering the UK SAR region as they appear to be the same ones being deployed.
Tubby,
What a good idea: Basically pull together every helicopter, carrier and special forces & commando forces you can scrape together. Use the helicopters to insert your forces, slot Gaddafi and then fight your way to the port to be extracted
… take “it” from the inside,
After that, the whole country will rejoice (even those who were with him!)
Now, going back to our contributions/ discussion before the Libya situation got “hot”
- everyone in power or responsibility has mentioned Article 7 of the UN Charter
Not one! of the following: Sec of State Clinton and Rasmussen of NATO has mentioned the RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT, only the necessity to get a “lawful” cover, for any action to be taken under Article 7.
Is it me being daft, or are the UNSC members (NATO not being one, but , heyy, 2 or 3 of the members being there… if you count the USA in, naturally acting in the interest of…), but read on, that was not the gist
So, that is not a barb… I like the line
1. Slovenia _Bosnia_Kosovo
- 4 years, you just sitting on your hands
- it was in your back yard
- still, we had to come in and sort it out
2. Since, we have been taking the action,deemed necessary (at the time) and mainly, you (Europe), have just been sniping from the “high ground”
3. BTW, we are back to your back yard
- how do you want to call it this time, having all your (not necessarily coordinated) principles?
- call us, when you know
- otherwise, we will hear it anyway (muddled) in the UNSC
Funnily enough Libya came up in conversation with my mother at the weekend (don’t laugh!). Being naturalised Polish, she has a very european view on things – namely “why do we always get involved in these wars, it’ll only encourage immigrants and we should only look after our own borders”.
It does seem to be a curiously British thing to want to get invlolved in thankless foreign wars on “humanitarian” grounds. Especially since the people crying out for a no-fly zone are the very bleeding heart liberals (not to be confused with Liberals), who want a Gendarmerie style armed forces and the saved money spent on the NHS and the Welfare State. Ironic really.
As for what we “should” do. I prefer Jackstaff’s idea to Tubby’s. With longer mission’s there is too much scope for creep (after all, would we need air-cover for the Free Libyan Legion’s training area’s?)
Hi DD,
Yes,
It does seem to be a curiously British thing to want to get invlolved in thankless foreign wars on “humanitarian” grounds. Especially since the people crying out for a no-fly zone are the very bleeding heart liberals (not to be confused with Liberals), who want a Gendarmerie style armed forces and the saved money spent on the NHS and the Welfare State. Ironic really.
But let’s go and see abt Libya , and the interest in our near-shore
Wstr twice over,
That’s the sound of Geddes Axe 2.0 blunting on reality. Or, in the words of one Tezza Pratchett, the midden hitting the windmill.
DD – while you were talking to your Mum, I was skyping my Dad, who did a tour in Libya before moving onto two spend the best part of 3 years in Korea….. (yes, he is that old).
Dad was based near Benghazi, says he quite liked the Libyan people, but also stated more or less :
Has any party in Libya asked for our help ? No, then lets keep our bloody noses out of a Libyan civil war !
I have to agree. If rebels ask for weapons, we just need to secure Benghazi docks while they are being unloaded, otherwise we really, really dont need to interfere.
My question would be why did we not intervene against China when after Tiananmen Square or against North Korea or even Zimbabwe if we really cared how dictatorships dealt with their subjects. Our interest are the supply of oil to fuel our economies. The threats made against Gaddafi aren’t going to be helpful to us if he prevails in this internal dispute. As the politicians have stuffed up with their rhetoric they may have to be prepared to eat humble pie after the revolution is crushed. If they cannot then they may indeed have to up the ante and get more involved.
I agree with those who point out that the rebels in Libya have specifically stated that they don’t want foreign troops – they just want Gaddafi’s planes off their backs.
Perhaps we don’t realise the extent to which the West in general (and, after the USA, the UK in particular) is regarded with deep distrust in the Arab world. The long-term support for Israel, and more recently the interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan, mean that they will always believe the anti-west propaganda.
They don’t want us getting involved in the ground fighting: neither our special forces, nor European volunteers to fight for them.
I think that if we are going to take military action, the best action we could take would be a surgical strike to take out Gaddafi’s air force on the ground. Then leave the rebels to sort the rest out themselves; we can supply them with arms if they ask for them.
In Libya, two groups of equally unpleasant Arabs are fighting for power. We should stand back and let them sort it out.
I think we can only to agree to let two groups of equally unpleasant people fight for power when it does not affect us economically. Once it affects us economically then it is in our interest for it to be over as quickly as possible and for things return to status quo. Sadly our politicians backed the wrong side, and now are going to have to either back the Rebels with more than words or look like idiots, with the consequences being an early general election followed by Labour government.
Personally I do not give a damn about the actual humanitarian side of it, all my empathy is tied up with my family, friends and colleagues, and what happens if oil hits $200 a barrel as some economists are predicting. Unfortunately too many people do care about the humanitarian side which is why our politicians have to spin the reasons for all the UK’s recent interventions, (Iraq was about oil and keeping the US from questioning the point of NATO, the second was just about keeping US sweet and if we go into Libya it will be about our oil and economics), which then gives a rather distorted position of our actions – after all if we really cared about humanitarian issues we would have intervened in the Second Congo War before an estimated 5 million people died from the fighting and the impact of the war.
Hi Tubby,
Yes, oil was $20 when that idiot Bush decided to go into Iraq (his father was much wiser). Now you are talking $200…
On that topic, my Stratfor news alert included this (about the shots fired in Saudi Arabia: “There is a strong potential for clashes to break out March 11 between Saudi security forces and protesters, particularly in the vital Eastern Province. Saudi authorities have taken tough security measures in the Shiite areas of the country by deploying about 15,000 national guardsmen to thwart the planned demonstrations by attempting to impose a curfew in critical areas. Energy speculators are already reacting to the heightened tensions in the Persian Gulf region, but unrest in cities like Qatif cuts directly to the source of the threat that is fueling market speculation: The major oil transit pipelines that supply the major oil port of Ras Tanura — the world’s largest, with a capacity of 5 million barrels per day — go directly through Qatif.”
Exactly the same place which was cut off on 28 November 1979 (when the eyes of the world were on the Mecca uprising, so no one noticed) and a day later there were 20 dead there, all Shias, of course, who had been calling for a revolution. So no fundamentalist wahhabis as in Mecca; those also overstepped the line, but with a different rhetoric, and met their end).
I heard a rather interesting comment on the TV this morning, “If Libya’s major export was broccolli, would there be this much coverage and involvement?”
There’s a civil insurrection kicking off in Ivory Coast, anyone want to impose a No Fly Zone there? Should NATO forces debate going in support of one particular side? Or because its a poverty ridden country on the West coast of Arica no-one gives a fat rat’s ass?
Tubby, you said: “set up naval blockade to stop weapons getting into Western Libya” then you said: “funnel all of the frozen Libyan assets to the rebel’s in Benghazi, and use some of this money to buy ammo, food, water and medicines and ship to them.” When you say stop weapons getting into Libya, do you mean just to pro-Ghaddafi forces? Or do you mean we should be the only one’s shipping weapons and ammo in country. A contradiction? I’m sure there’s an article in the UN charter that maintains that arms shouldn’t be supplied in situations like this.
Since 1990 we have spent billions of pounds and lost hundreds of military lives in military interventions of one sort or another. I find it hard to think of a single advantage to this country.
“What is the UK’s interest here”
Having a near-abroad that whose various peoples have legitimate government, in that they percieve it to be both accountable and representative, as a harmonious civil society will be of great benefit to Britain’s own prosperity.
They have a democratically elected, representative and legitimate government in Gaza. However, this creates a great deal of anxiety for US foreign policy.
Also, what if the harmonious Libyan civil society wants nothing to do with the UK and US? The UK and US would rather have a dictator they can deal with than a democracy they can’t, especially when oil is involved. That unfortunately is the crux of the matter, and that’s where UK and US interests lie.
Jedi,
You hit the nail on the head: “Having a near-abroad that whose various peoples have…”
- I think I’ve used that term but now it is “official”
- it covers other places, not just those that are separated from “us” by the Med: Turkey, Ukraine (who cares about the tin-pot dictator between Russia and Poland, though), even the Caucasus states (the Americans have spoilt the adjective Caucasian)
- Russia is far from democratic, but at least the gvmnt in power acts rationally on the world scene (I wonder when the BBC reporters will actually refresh from Wiki what they learned at school re: who they call the world’s biggest oil producer?)
@Jed-02:34am
heh, interesting about your dad, mine was with the RA in the 8th Army, From Tobruk all the way to Monte Cassino.
I agree that this is a war we can “do without”. I even called into the Jeremy Vine show to say that with the defence cuts in progress we no longer have (or soon will no longer have) the capability to prosecute a “no-fly-zone” over Libya.
Unfortunately joint statements from the PM and the French President, plus Franc’s recognition of the rebels, plus recent (this morning) press releases from the Gubbmint about needing to “do something” seem to be pushing is this unwanted direction.
So, who in the General Staff will have the balls to stand up and say that we *cannot* do what the bleeding heart liberals want, as we don’t have the wherewithall?!
What would the political implications be of western government actively taking part in toppling a Middle Eastern dictator? I would imagine that Saudi Arabia, and others would go ape. As retribution they would at least cancel defence contracts with the west and be much less co-operative, as well as subduing their own citizens even more. There is also the danger of them threatening Isreal as a response. Britain and the USA then says they will support Isreal and if it comes to it, help defend it from any attack. Things could get tense very quickly.
Michael-(Ex DIS)
I agree entirely with both of your posts.
Not so long ago we appeased Ghadaffi and returned the Lockerbie bomber.
We then had Blair on a mission to Libya hugging and kissing this dictator.
This all seems shades of Saddam whom during the Iran,Iraq wars the west was backing and supplying with arms until he upset us by threatening our oil supplies.
Ghadaffi has been in power in Libya for decades and has been both vilified and courted by the west in equal amounts.
These so called rebels only as recently as last week were stating categoricaly that they had no wish to see any outside interference in their revolt.
That of course is when they were gaining ground,now the government troops are pushing them back they are crying out for western military help.
What did they expect to happen when they decided to attack the ruling party,unlike Tunisia and Egypt where the uprising was mainly carried out by mass unarmed members of the public,they decided to take outright military action. Big mistake and now they want their nuts pulling out of the fire.
Leave them alone to sort it out,we will get no thanks whatsoever from them or from other Arab countries.
It’s a civil war, we shouldn’t get involved.
We don’t even know what we would get in Libya if we did; it could end up as a new Turkey, it could end up as the new Iran, or the country could descend into 20 years of inter-faction fighting with Libyan civilians taking the brunt of countless acts of terrorism – car bombs, shootings etc.
Whatever the outcome for Libya, once we get involved we’ll think we have the right to influence who takes power after Gaddafi -which has been at the origin of our problems with many other countries.
And we will be percieved by many arabs and muslims -rightly or wrongly- as being responsible for every little problem that the next regime has.
Also, if the government is concerned about any intervention being legal, surely regime change is not a legitimate aim. I thought that was why we made such an effort to convince people about weapons of mass destruction before changing the regime in Iraq.
Some people see a NFZ as a relatively minor level of intervention; but if that doesn’t work and the rebels suffer defeats, there will be an overwhelming pressure to increase our involvement.
Countries like the US or UK are hardly likely to put the effort into enforcing a NFZ, then just shrug our shoulders, pack up and go home if we see it fail. A NFZ could be the top of a very slippery slope.
As for protecting civilians; a NFZ does not stop artillery, tanks and small arms – which seem to have been responsible for more civilian casualties than the Libyan airforce anyway. Notwithstanding the defecting and ejecting pilots, there does not seem to be a great deal of firm evidence that their airforce have been involved in deliberate strikes against civilians; there seems to be more evidence concerning attacks on military bases, arms dumps, and against armed rebels though.
There is a long history in ‘revolutions’ and civil wars of the smaller less popular forces which is disciplined and has the heavy equipment winning over much larger untrained ill equiped units.
Col Gadaffi will win this war unless we stop him.
Whether we should stop him etc is another matter. But without real intervention training equipment etc, he will win.
Can anyone explain why sustaining a NFZ is favoured by the UK and others, rather than just hitting the couple of key airfields in the west during an evening or two?
They’d be air defence hot-spots, but surely that wouldn’t be beyond NATO’s capability.
‘Whether we should stop him etc is another matter. But without real intervention training equipment etc, he will win.’
Indeed IXION, and there are going to be some very silly looking governments at the end of all of this.
I actually wish our governments would come out in the open and say why it is in British interests, when other humanitarian conflicts are not. Infact, wasn’t the status quo before this trouble in our interest? We got Gaddaffi back ‘on side’ and we had our companies making money there and the oil was flowing.
@ Brian
I think and NFZ is preferred because it seems a more passive action (more a threat of action), to the people proposing it (they being ignorant of what is actually required).
Actively destroying the Libyan AF, however is seen as a more warlike action that, importantly, could draw criticism from other Arab countries (i.e. How dare the West intervene in this way?)
I wonder what the Libyan Navy is doing in all this? Benghazi had a Navy installation, and elements of the Navy there declared for the rebels. What vessels are available to the rebels, I wonder, and could they be used as SAM overwatch on the coastal region – or even for offensive action in shelling Tripoli (Shades of Vincent Tsao’s “Junta” boardgame there!). Of course, loyal elements of the Navy in Tripoli could do the same to Benghazi I s’pose.
In the Guardian today, Ademiral Sir Trvor Soar: “The RFTG ( of 6 ships) is currently scheduled to leave the UK at the end of April.
“If some or all of these platforms were required for operations off Libya, then they could quickly be prepared for that.”
- what he broadly, without being specific about which 6 ships, explains about the planning and preparations sounds like TD’s LOG to me
Hi DD,
They had 4 very powerful ships for the tonnage (the rest do not count);
WADI M’RAGH CLASS PATROL COMBATANTS
Hull No. Name
Builder
Launched Commissioned De-Commissioned Comments
134 Laksamana Hang Nadim
ex Kalid ibn al Walid, F216 Fincantieri, Muggiano 5-Jul-1983 28-Jul-1997
135 Laksamana Tun Abdul Gamil
ex Saad ibn abi Wakkad, F218 Fincantieri, Muggiano 30-Dec-1983 28-Jul-1997
136 Laksamana Muhammad Amin
ex Abdullah ibn abi Serh, F214 Fincantieri, Muggiano 5-Jul-1983 Jul-1999
137 Laksamana Tun Pusman
ex Salah Aldin Ayoobi, F220 Fincantieri, Muggiano 30-Mar-1984 Jul-1999
but the Italian sources (they were built in Italy) state that during the ’90s they became inoperable (did I get my Nixonese right with that term?)because of inadequate maintenance
Rather than NATO, could the Arab nations put together something to solve the situation in libya. Egypt’s mitiary is intact and stable and most importantly very large and well equipped. A single armoured brigade (M1A2) and air cover (F-16C) would probably be more than enough to get the job done, acting in support of the forces opposed to the Regime. Why does the west have to get involved again?
I believe the NFZ is utterly pointless, we could wipe the Libyan airforce off the map and churn up their runways, but it won’t stop Ghadaffi’s tanks rolling towards Benghazi.
Then what do we do? Politically, we’ve already nailed our colours to the mast. Ghadaffi was brought back into the world for the war on terror, Al Qaeda never got a foothold in Libya, just like it didn’t in Iraq when Saddam Hussain was alive. I wonder how things will change now the borders are a more porous?
Hi LJ,
Very true “A single armoured brigade would probably be more than enough to get the job done”, but
-the last arab on arab invation was in 1920′s, al Saud taking the much more structured kingdom on the Red Sea (the Hashemites were then found something else to do, like Iraq and Jordania, that were not considered very important).
- btw, Saddams story was always that Kuwait was a province stolen from Iraq (guess by whom?)
It just does not sit with the culture and the values, even when Egypt under Nasser was trying to annex Yemen, it was all about pan-arabic ideology (supposedly), and supporting one side (even if made up) within an existing political entity
… not to mention that the Egyptian top brass might have something else on their mind, just for now?
Tubby
I’m afraid the situation is far more complex than you believe.
Gadaffi is being armed by Russia, via Belarus.
Unless you intend to board/shoot down russian craft, the arms will get through.
Step 2 is what we in the business call “stealing”.
The UK is a world financial centre precisely because we dont have a history of stealing one groups deposits and givng them to a group we deem more willing.
Option three has some merit, I’d go further and back them up with CAS.
The problem is, the Benghazis are no more “The People Choice” than Ghadafi.
When they get to Tripoli, they’ll find a strongman and spend the next 30 years oppressing Ghadafi’s tribe.
Jackstaff
Kill Ghadafi and his sons, and someone else steps up.
Al-Queda wont stop just because you kill Osama…
Jedi
“Having a near-abroad that whose various peoples have legitimate government, in that they percieve it to be both accountable and representative, as a harmonious civil society will be of great benefit to Britain’s own prosperity.”
And us bombing a rag tag band of rapists and murderers into power will accomplish that how?
Jon
Saudi wouldnt care, the RSAF would kick the RAF to death in a morderate afternoon….
Ixion
“Col Gadaffi will win this war unless we stop him.
Whether we should stop him etc is another matter. But without real intervention training equipment etc, he will win.”
Yep, they had a chance of overthrowing him if they struck quickly, but once he had time to get his artilery and armour into gear, it was just the slow methodical process of bombard until enemy breaks, advance until enemy stands, bombard until enemy breaks, advance until enemy stands.
BB
A no fly zone doesnt require a shot to be fired.
Hi DJ,
Any facts behind this “Gadaffi is being armed by Russia, via Belarus”?
- it would tally up with the longer term (normal)arms deals
- just that I have not seen anything on it
“And us bombing a rag tag band of rapists and murderers into power will accomplish that how?”
I’m not saying that a no-fly-zone in isolation would accomplish much, but the question was; “What is the UK’s interest here?”
I’d go with:
“Having a near-abroad whose various peoples have legitimate government, in that they percieve it to be both accountable and representative, as harmonious civil society in the Med will be of great benefit to Britain’s own continued prosperity.”
How this is achieved is a separate matter.
I haven’t had a chance to properly read the article or this thread so will save my comments until I do; however, thought this might be of interest.
http://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/8162/the-realist-prism-libya-as-threat-du-jour
and this…
http://conflicthealth.com/send-food-to-libya/
and this.
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/europes-offshore-dog-and-pony-show.html
Gareth,
Good sources you have, like the first one of your three links:
Quote first “Foreign policy is not a video game where a player can rely on an endless supply of resources and where there are no consequences for failure. Any military intervention should have clear-cut objectives and be undertaken with no illusions about the costs and risks.”
Nikolas K. Gvosdev is the former editor of the National Interest, and …is currently on the faculty of the U.S. Naval War College
Reminds me of my favourite book (had to go and get it from the shelf, for the spelling: Zbigniew Brzezinski, The Choice – Global Domination or Global Leadership
What a good idea: Basically pull together every helicopter, carrier and special forces & commando forces you can scrape together. Use the helicopters to insert your forces, slot Gaddafi and then fight your way to the port to be extracted
So, the plan is an opposed amphibious/airmobile assault that turns straight into urban combat all the way through a city of two million people? Well, that sounds easy enough.
Some of the loudest calls for action are coming from an alliance of left wing interventionists who have obviously forgot the lessons of Iraq and the Balkans and indeed their opposition to them
That article’s by Menzies Campbell and Philippe Sands. Both supported intervention in Bosnia (though not the invasion of Iraq). You mustn’t let your instinctive hatred of the goddam hippies get between you and the real world like that.
Jon: What would the political implications be of western government actively taking part in toppling a Middle Eastern dictator?
Well, what happened the last time we did it?
Hi again Gareth,
In your third link provided this Galrahn writes not-so-intelligently about the same situation, but just reading through the first three (like minded) comments to it prove my point, as contributed ArmChairCivvy
March 10, 2011 at 10:26 pm
- and I tried not to come across too opionated!!
(at a deeper level I do share the thrust of their argument)
From a Liberal (IR theory) point of view we can’t do jack directly because Libya is a sovereign state and we need legality/legitimacy to act. From a Realist point of view, we have screwed up big time by declaring against Gaddafi; He could now become a major threat on Europe’s Boarder but we lack the resources or the will to remove that threat. The US are not interested apart from a PR stand point and won’t give Europe the leadership (or patsy as the case may be) it appears we require.
From both a Realist and Liberal point of view, it would appear Gaddafi’s removal would be beneficial. Directly intervening would apparently be a mistake; too much anti-colonial backlash and getting bogged down in another war is not appealing. Food, fuel and even arms to the rebels might help (but might just lengthen the conflict).
What we (the west)appear to need is plausible deniability. Any arms sent should be Russian in origin, co-ordinates to fuel dumps in the desert should mysteriously find there way to rebel leaders; “Security Contractors” should be training the Rebels in tactics and weapon use (any resemblance to Green Berets and SAS are purely co-incidental…)
In fact, preety much what we did in A-Stan during the Soviet occupation. We just have to make sure the “EndGame” has a better outcome…
@ ACC – do you have a link for the RFTG story?
Hi a,
You must have directed your comment to me as it had the “What a good idea:” before the rest of the quote?
Do you not know that Gaddafi camps outside of Tripoli?
Why would that be (in normal circumstances)?
- so that this 32nd brigade can protect him from the loving supporters, all the 2 million of them near-by, 6.8 in all (can’t add the exiles, they must have a reason to go to exile)
So, another Stalingrad (or, in fact, Berlin was not being recommended).
The rest must be for someone else, I don’t recognise it
Baring in mind my first link, the 24hr news channels are now full of the Japanese earthquake. I wouldn’t be surprised if those calling for intervention in Libya now call for help to be sent to the pacific… at the same time as intervening in Libya… and get quite irate when they’re told we don’t have the resources…
Hi Gareth, it is still visible on TD’s side panel (as per below); did not make much sense, but the printed (full) version might do so:
“Navy makes contingency plans to send more ships to Libya | UK news | The Guardian http://ping.fm/c4X9k“