Libya: Seriously, where is this going?

[RedRalph]

This has dragged on far longer than expected and is no closer to any sort of resolution than when the west attacked. Where is this going to end?

 

[Gabryel Karolin]

Ghaddafi stays the formally the leader while some power is moved to a 'democratic' government. Everyones happy, NATO saved the world once again and Ghaddafi stays in power and gets the oil back going. Except the dissidents, they will be killed, of course, but discretely so noone needs to be upset.

 

[Yoda Power]

Right know the east is left pretty much alone, while there are heavy fighting in the west, especially in Misuratah.

I think four things could happen.

1) The goverment wins. End of story.
2) The rebel wins. Who knows what then happens.
3) The goverment secures the west, the rebels secure the east. After some time the two parts are reunited in some sort bargained settlement.
4) The goverment secures the west, the rebels secure the east. Then it's in effect two countries, like Korea is.


It might help to look at the maps:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_the_2011_Libyan_civil_war

 

[IglooDame]

Unfortunately, it has developed into a civil war. And the vast majority of civil wars are not quick and tend to be measured in years rather than days or weeks.

Say what you like about Mubarak, he (semi?)willingly stepped down and probably avoided a similar fate for Egypt.

 

[aronnax]

News today said that the UN has set up an office to coordinate supplies or something in Benghazi.
Seems like this isn't over for the UN.

And NATO is not going to slow down anytime soon. Especially since the Rebels won a victory in pushing them back at Mistra.

France was an idiot for recognising the Rebel government as the legal government though.

 

[nato2101]

France was an idiot for recognising the Rebel government as the legal government though.

No they weren't, that recognition has gotten them all the oil and reconstruction contracts whilst with Gheddafi's government those contracts all went to Italy (and we paid, have been paying and are still paying "reparations" for the privilege)

 

[RedRalph]

Personally, I think they will try and kill Gaddaffi a few more times and after that it'll just be constant low-level bombing like they do in Pakistan, Yemen and a few other countries...

 

[Lone Wolf]

I don't think that it is going anywhere, to be honest. I bet that Bammy, Sarko and Co. didn't really expect Qaddafi to be so damn resistant.

 

[RedRalph]

I don't think that it is going anywhere, to be honest. I bet that Bammy, Sarko and Co. didn't really expect Qaddafi to be so damn resistant.

Nor did I, TBH. I thought this would be over relativly quickly. He must have a fair amount of genuine support.

 

[Lillefix]

Nato wouldn't recognise a quagmire even if they were at the bottom of one. I thought Afghanistan was warning enough. And when it ends they will feel obligated to oversee the peace process because they bombed down half the country. For it's own good, the Nato countries should learn to not care. I'm not saying it's morally right, but since they can't interfere in all countries(like syria), they will be accused of double standards anyway.

 

[nato2101]

Nor did I, TBH. I thought this would be over relativly quickly. He must have a fair amount of genuine support.

He has a lot of money, that buys support. Also those who are in his army know they will be punished for their "support" of Gheddafi if they lose the war so giving up isn't really an option for them

 

[Yoda Power]

Nor did I, TBH. I thought this would be over relativly quickly. He must have a fair amount of genuine support.

He has been preparing for uprising for 40 years. Many of his soldiers are mercenaries. Obviously there are people who still support him (probably mostly those who work in state jobs), but I doubt that's the most important factor.

 

[MobBoss]

I don't think that it is going anywhere, to be honest. I bet that Bammy, Sarko and Co. didn't really expect Qaddafi to be so damn resistant.

Nor did I, TBH. I thought this would be over relativly quickly. He must have a fair amount of genuine support.

My impression hasnt been that Qaddafi is all that resistant or effective, but that the rebels themselves are utter morons. Not too long ago, I saw some footage on CNN that showed the rebels failing to secure a rocket launcher properly, and as soon as they fired the thing, it flipped over and started shooting rockets into their own ranks.

Yeah, those guys opposing Qaddafi arent exactly the sharpest tools in the shed...

 

[Yoda Power]

My impression hasnt been that Qaddafi is all that resistant or effective, but that the rebels themselves are utter morons. Not too long ago, I saw some footage on CNN that showed the rebels failing to secure a rocket launcher properly, and as soon as they fired the thing, it flipped over and started shooting rockets into their own ranks.

Yeah, those guys opposing Qaddafi arent exactly the sharpest tools in the shed...

A little harsh perhaps? You're a moron because you're without any military experience? I doubt most people would know what to do with a rocket launcher.

 

[Gigaz]

The Nato will bomb Libya until Gaddafi dies of old age, if necessary. They can't allow him to stay. He will want to take revenge and he gives a damn about treaties.

 

[West 36]

Well, there's an English radio station broadcasting from Benghazi, have a listen:
http://tributefm.com/player.php

 

[innonimatu]

The Libyans are screwe - what I've been saying all along...

The whole purpose of these interventions into foreign countries is to weaken them, to make their resources easier prey. "Humanitarianism" and "democracy" my ass. The rule is that the population gets screwed whenever foreigners succeed in meddling.

 

[MobBoss]

A little harsh perhaps? You're a moron because you're without any military experience? I doubt most people would know what to do with a rocket launcher.

Sure, its harsh, and it is also true. As to what most people would know what to do with a rocket launcher, I would think it common sense to at least secure the damn thing before firing it. But if you dont think thats a given, fine.

Again, I think my point stands. Qaddafi doesnt have to be that effective for the simple reason his opposition on the ground is much less so. In the land of the blind, the one eyed man reigns supreme.

 

[BasketCase]

This has dragged on far longer than expected and is no closer to any sort of resolution than when the west attacked. Where is this going to end?

To answer that one, you're going to have to ask the Libyan rebels, because the answer lies entirely with them.

Airstrikes are merely a facilitator. They cripple the enemy, but anything blown up by a plane can be rebuilt. In order to win a war, you have to have boots on the ground (to prevent the enemy from ever coming back to destroyed stuff). And we don't. Only the rebels do.

So either put American troops in there, or quit complaining. Perhaps now you see why people like me were so adamant about getting into Iraq and deposing Saddam with troops: because rebellions from the inside, without the training and equipment possessed by Free World nations, take a lot longer and are a lot bloodier.

 

[Aegis]

A little harsh perhaps? You're a moron because you're without any military experience? I doubt most people would know what to do with a rocket launcher.

Trying to fire something as dangerous as a multi-rocket launcher while not having any training on how to operate it, is pretty stupid. Doing so is just begging for something to go wrong.