Libya: Seriously, where is this going?

[Winner]

I have to say, this is quietly turning into a realy humiliation for NATO. They have gained nothing, except more proof of the ineffectiveness of airpower alone.

Oh it's been very effective in turning Gaddafi's heavy equipment into smoking wreckage. The problem is, he doesn't need it to hold what he already has.

The Libyan rebels' fighting prowess seems to consist of shouting "allahu akbar" at least once every 10 seconds, shooting wildly in every direction (most often in the air), and riding back and forth in pick-up trucks waving their homemade flags from windows. From what I am seeing on TV, even I'd be a better soldier than them.

The fact that Gaddafi hasn't crushed them yet indicates that his forces a) are only marginally more competent; b) cannot do anything without heavy weapons.

NATO's initial air campaign saved the rebels from certain defeat. The problem is that NATO didn't follow it with a surgical action by land forces - they were scared of being involved in yet another operation in a Muslim country. So we have this war that's dragging out because NATO is too cowardly to do what's right and just and necessary.

 

[woody60707]

Qaddafi is a (war) criminal now and has been for decades (Lockerbie, anyone?). You can measure the love his people have for him right now, in towns like Benghazi or Misrata.

NATO's failure doesn't lie in action, but in the lack of a decisive action. The civil war could have ended months ago if NATO wasn't too scared to commit ground troops.

Winner's back? When did you start posting again?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Well, with proper air support? Most airborne or air assault infantry divisions could.
I was in a brigade, and we took the city of Kirkuk in 2003. Metro area of Kirkuk is over 1 million people (I believe).

Sure, but you had hundreds of thousands of other soldiers around you - ie multiple divisions and corps in the same theatre of battle.

What is being proposed in this thread is to send an isolated division into an enemy capital with sole responsibility for achieving the strategic goals of the war aim. There would be no other divisions or corps around it.

Thus, the combat power of the division would be greatly reduced, and its operational and strategic situation would be completely unnaceptable considering a division has no real operational or strategic capabilities.

I think the Russians sent a battalion or brigade into Grozny when the rebellion first occured, assuming they could re-impose police control. It was a mechanised unit, and they were ambushed and pretty much wiped out. If we sent a division into Tripoli it would be the greatest incentive to the Libyans to inflict a humiliating defeat or unnacceptably high casualities on them.


In reality, such an operation would require tens of thousands of men because the surrounding area etc would need to be occupied as part of risk management and wider strategic goals.

tl;dr - sending in ground troops is not an option because we don't have enough combat resources available. Sending in a single division would be even worse because it would set the stage for a complete debacle.

 

[kochman]

Sure, but you had hundreds of thousands of other soldiers around you - ie multiple divisions and corps in the same theatre of battle.

The closest friendly units were about 400 miles away, and the entire Iraqi Army stood between us and them.
We were paratroopers, and we were quite isolated.

I agree that you'd have to send other units to other parts of the country, but a Brigade could, potentially, pull off the capture and holding of Tripoli.

 

[RedRalph]

Oh it's been very effective in turning Gaddafi's heavy equipment into smoking wreckage. The problem is, he doesn't need it to hold what he already has.

The Libyan rebels' fighting prowess seems to consist of shouting "allahu akbar" at least once every 10 seconds, shooting wildly in every direction (most often in the air), and riding back and forth in pick-up trucks waving their homemade flags from windows. From what I am seeing on TV, even I'd be a better soldier than them.

The fact that Gaddafi hasn't crushed them yet indicates that his forces a) are only marginally more competent; b) cannot do anything without heavy weapons.

NATO's initial air campaign saved the rebels from certain defeat. The problem is that NATO didn't follow it with a surgical action by land forces - they were scared of being involved in yet another operation in a Muslim country. So we have this war that's dragging out because NATO is too cowardly to do what's right and just and necessary.

I understand how it's played out militarily - but politically it's just ridiculous. NATO attacks tinpot dictator, backs rebels, dictator turns out to be a lot harder to dislodge than first though and rebels turn out to be inept. at the start of the NATO attack, I thought it would last maybe two weeks at most. Patroklos would have said two days, and to be honest, I wouldn't have argued with him. That was on March 18th.

Months later, they actually seem to be further from winning than they were at the start. Now all that could change suddenly, but the whole thing really makes NATO look a hell of a lot less formidable than they used to, you have to admit.

 

[Ayn Rand]

The closest friendly units were about 400 miles away, and the entire Iraqi Army stood between us and them.
We were paratroopers, and we were quite isolated.

I agree that you'd have to send other units to other parts of the country, but a Brigade could, potentially, pull off the capture and holding of Tripoli.

I see - I googled it and it's a city full of Kurds. I'm guessing that you were dropped in because political analysts decided the locals were primarily in support, and because Iraqi army had no chance of redeploying to take advantage of your force because the main American force was engaging [or about to engage] them.


As you say, a Brigade could capture Tripoli on its own under the right circumstances - but only as long as other forces were in theatre [so it would only be "on its own" in a situational context, rather than absolutely on its own]. A brigade or division would not be able to achieve the war aims alone and so any commitment of ground forces would have to be well above division strength, meaning we can't make the commitment at the moment.

Edit: also, I don't see a problem with slowly taking them down through the use of airpower - even if it does take a while.

 

[Winner]

I understand how it's played out militarily - but politically it's just ridiculous. NATO attacks tinpot dictator, backs rebels, dictator turns out to be a lot harder to dislodge than first though and rebels turn out to be inept. at the start of the NATO attack, I thought it would last maybe two weeks at most. Patroklos would have said two days, and to be honest, I wouldn't have argued with him. That was on March 18th.

Months later, they actually seem to be further from winning than they were at the start. Now all that could change suddenly, but the whole thing really makes NATO look a hell of a lot less formidable than they used to, you have to admit.

Yep, politically speaking it's a farce. And even though I am not exactly the greatest humanitarian there is, even I am appalled by the human cost of this screw-up. If the rebels with and the country is in ruins, what chances are there the country will develop towards more Western-style democracy?

Of course, I don't really blame the Americans (this time) - solving the mess in Libya is 95% in European interest, the Americans aren't directly affected.

Edit: also, I don't see a problem with slowly taking them down through the use of airpower - even if it does take a while.

Really, you don't? Well, it's not the only thing you don't see here.

 

[Benefactor]

The Rebels in the west don't seem all that bad, there no trained army; sure, but its the ones in the east that seem to really have no idea what they are doing.

 

[Snorrius]

Let's hope Gaddafi will be able to suppress these scoundrels and restore the constitutional order in the country.

 

[kochman]

I see - I googled it and it's a city full of Kurds. I'm guessing that you were dropped in because political analysts decided the locals were primarily in support, and because Iraqi army had no chance of redeploying to take advantage of your force because the main American force was engaging [or about to engage] them.


As you say, a Brigade could capture Tripoli on its own under the right circumstances - but only as long as other forces were in theatre [so it would only be "on its own" in a situational context, rather than absolutely on its own]. A brigade or division would not be able to achieve the war aims alone and so any commitment of ground forces would have to be well above division strength, meaning we can't make the commitment at the moment.

Edit: also, I don't see a problem with slowly taking them down through the use of airpower - even if it does take a while.

Actually, it is full of Kurds, Arabs and Turkmen, which led to lots of ethnic tension/strife... The city is hotly contested due to... OIL! It was literally bubbling out of the ground at several points in and around the city.

The Kurds were our allies during the initial invasion, but in holding the city we could show them no favoritism (though they didn't attack us, only the Arabs attacked us).

You are right though, to take over and establish security in Libya would take more than a division!

 

[Winner]

You are right though, to take over and establish security in Libya would take more than a division!

And it wouldn't be necessary. Tripoli is the seat of the regime, most of the leadership is there and it's a symbol - if it fell, it would be over for Gaddafi, even if he managed to excape. There's no need to actually militarily occupy the whole country.

 

[SerriaFox]

And it wouldn't be necessary. Tripoli is the seat of the regime, most of the leadership is there and it's a symbol - if it fell, it would be over for Gaddafi, even if he managed to excape. There's no need to actually militarily occupy the whole country.

That is exactly what we did in Iraq, how well did taking only Baghdad work? And the road to get there. You need to DRAFT one million Europeans and send them to every single village in the country for a period of not less than five years if you want a stable government to emerge.

 

[Winner]

That is exactly what we did in Iraq, how well did taking only Baghdad work? And the road to get there. You need to DRAFT one million Europeans and send them to every single village in the country for a period of not less than five years if you want a stable government to emerge.

No, that's exactly what you didn't do, and comparing Iraq to Libya is like comparing Tahiti to Greenland. Both are islands, but the similarities end there.

The aim of the operation wouldn't be to occupy the country and set up a new regime. The aim would be to

a) capture Gaddafi or force him out of the city
b) cripple the regime by seizing its nerve centre
c) deliver a major blow to the morale of the regime combatants
d) aid the civilian population

The rebels would then finally be able to dislodge the remaining loyalists and get to the capital on their own. After a short period during which NATO would hand over control over Tripoli to the rebels (while making sure they don't commit any massacres of their own), we'd get out and leave Libyans to sort out their government as they see fit.

 

[Ayn Rand]

And it wouldn't be necessary. Tripoli is the seat of the regime, most of the leadership is there and it's a symbol - if it fell, it would be over for Gaddafi, even if he managed to excape. There's no need to actually militarily occupy the whole country.

A few months ago, people were telling us we only needed a few air strikes. Every time we get involved in one of these wars, we have to understand that it's not a game and it may require years of sustained commitment and escalation.

 

[SerriaFox]

No, that's exactly what you didn't do, and comparing Iraq to Libya is like comparing Tahiti to Greenland. Both are islands, but the similarities end there.

The aim of the operation wouldn't be to occupy the country and set up a new regime. The aim would be to

a) capture Gaddafi or force him out of the city
b) cripple the regime by seizing its nerve centre
c) deliver a major blow to the morale of the regime combatants
d) aid the civilian population

The rebels would then finally be able to dislodge the remaining loyalists and get to the capital on their own. After a short period during which NATO would hand over control over Tripoli to the rebels (while making sure they don't commit any massacres of their own), we'd get out and leave Libyans to sort out their government as they see fit.

That sounds exactly like the Iraq plan. It can't be done on the "cheap". It requires a strong military forces throughout the country.

a) capture Saddam or force him out of the city Check
b) cripple the regime by seizing its nerve centre Check
c) deliver a major blow to the morale of the regime combatants Check
d) aid the civilian population Billions spent Check (without accountants cause it was to dangerous to send the civilians in)

 

[Winner]

A few months ago, people were telling us we only needed a few air strikes. Every time we get involved in one of these wars, we have to understand that it's not a game and it may require years of sustained commitment and escalation.

Years of sustained bombing will kill a lot of people, damage a lot of infrastructure, anger a lot of Arabs, ruin NATO's reputation, empty its coffers, but other than that it will hardly accomplish more than it did in the first few days of the campaign. The goal was to stop Gaddafi from using tanks and artillery against the rebels, which would have resulted in a bloodbath once he got to Benghazi.

Now, if the regime doesn't collapse - it doesn't look like it is about to - and Gaddafi settles in for a siege of Tripoli, the city and the country will suffer further damage. Even if the rebels win in the end, they'll rule over a totally disrupted country.

How on Earth is that in our interest? How does that support Western interests in the Arab world in any way? Intervening decisively on the side of the rebels while there was still time to prevent major damage to the country's infrastructure could have won the West important points - "see, we're on your side, we won't let insane dictators massacre you when you rise against them. If need be, we'll arrest them and bring them to justice". Instead, we just throw bombs as usual, because we're too scared of losing a few soldiers on the ground.

Sigh.


@SerriaFox: Apples and oranges.

 

[Ayn Rand]

Years of sustained bombing will kill a lot of people, damage a lot of infrastructure, anger a lot of Arabs, ruin NATO's reputation, empty its coffers, but other than that it will hardly accomplish more than it did in the first few days of the campaign. The goal was to stop Gaddafi from using tanks and artillery against the rebels, which would have resulted in a bloodbath once he got to Benghazi.

Now, if the regime doesn't collapse - it doesn't look like it is about to - and Gaddafi settles in for a siege of Tripoli, the city and the country will suffer further damage. Even if the rebels win in the end, they'll rule over a totally disrupted country.

How on Earth is that in our interest? How does that support Western interests in the Arab world in any way? Intervening decisively on the side of the rebels while there was still time to prevent major damage to the country's infrastructure could have won the West important points - "see, we're on your side, we won't let insane dictators massacre you when you rise against them. If need be, we'll arrest them and bring them to justice". Instead, we just throw bombs as usual, because we're too scared of losing a few soldiers on the ground.

Sigh.

I agree with you that we need to escalate it - however, I don't agree that a one-division escalation is going to be enough. Yours is a Vietnam strategy - just 10,000 troops, then just 40,000 and then just 100,000 and so on.

The commitment on this one is likely to be long-term and increasing. If we're going to send in ground troops, we need to send in enough to get the job done properly. The French, Germans etc will not do that.


Thus - we can't commit ground troops at this phase. 10,000 is not enough. Any more, and we just don't have them.
For that reason, our options are to surrender, or continue the current strategy. That's the reality we're caught in.

 

[SerriaFox]

@SerriaFox: Apples and oranges.

While Ceres Bella is quite different between Iraq, Libya and Afghanistan. Once on the ground operation began I still say you need to control the country not the capital.

The Goodwill you speak of only exist if we provide security. Which means to the whole country. something we failed to do in Iraq.

 

[Patroklos]

I understand how it's played out militarily - but politically it's just ridiculous. NATO attacks tinpot dictator, backs rebels, dictator turns out to be a lot harder to dislodge than first though and rebels turn out to be inept. at the start of the NATO attack, I thought it would last maybe two weeks at most. Patroklos would have said two days, and to be honest, I wouldn't have argued with him. That was on March 18th.

I believe my actual arguement was it would have been a lot faster if we had stepped it right away when the rebels were riding a wave of momentum.

Unfortunetly certain leaders spent two weeks making useless speeches in commitee instead of being decisive one way or the other. Its not like we didn't know Obama and pals would intervene, the frustating thing was knowing that yet watching them delay for no reason.

We gave the loyalists a chance to rally resources and catch their breath, and by then the rebels just didn't have enough energy to continue on with that first push against a now more organized enemy.

In short, we made a decision to rely only on air power based on a set of circumstances that expired ling before bombs started dropping.

 

[innonimatu]

There was never any evidence whatsoever that the rebellion was anything other than a regional rebellion cooked up by a few people betting on the success of a palace coup by scaring Qaddafi into fleeing. There was never any evidence of strong anti-Qaddafi movements in the capital, where more than half the population of the country live. A few thousand people do not a revolution make. Not should they justify any foreign invasion to "protect them", or just about any country with a handful of Quislings would be fair game.

Some people here are now arguing for the logic which I warned about long ago, when first the hypothesis of an "air exclusion zone" was raised: because NATO has involved itself already, it now must get further involved with a large-scale land invasion. Except... the manpower and the finances of its members are stretched thin with ongoing occupations, there's no will - with good reason - to start yer another one.
And the situation in Libya itself was also what I predicted: needless destruction over the whole country which has dragged on for months.

Want to end the war? End the support for the rebels. They'll get defeated? Good riddance! If Qaddafi was a bad ruler, what to say of people so inept as to be unable to overthrow them, even with foreign bombs and weapons aiding them?