Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Bakerofish wrote:@dogma

so gaddaffis guns and goons are a non issue then?

That doesn't seem like what I said, but maybe I'm unknowingly suffering from schizophrenia..

Bakerofish wrote:
great.

this should be over in no time.

Do you think that if force A was able to go into battle without any threat of being bombed that it might be more successful? Do you think that the opposing force, force B, might be worse off without the ability to bomb the opposition?

Do you also think that force B might be less willing to fight if Coalition A made a concrete show of force, potentially implying that they will make more of them?

I can understand the argument that it isn't worth our time to impose a no-fly zone, I can't understand the argument that it wouldn't make a difference. Well, that's not true, I understand both, but only one of them is reasonable.

argh

again my stance here isnt against "no fly zone"

my stance here is that no fly zone isnt ENOUGH

geez

neutralizing air capability is one thing but when you still have civilians fighting a well armed military force...even without air support they can and more likely will reclaim the country.

Bakerofish wrote:argh

again my stance here isnt against "no fly zone"

my stance here is that no fly zone isnt ENOUGH

geez

neutralizing air capability is one thing but when you still have civilians fighting a well armed military force...even without air support they can and more likely will reclaim the country.

You know that a large chunk of the military turned on Gaddafi, right?

seriously...can anyone give me a source for this "great military revolt"?

so far the only confirmation im getting is that ONE MILITARY UNIT defected

one. unit.

thats anywhere between 70-200 soldiers

thats not a lot.

ive been googling and come up dry

im thinking if a "good chunk" or "majority" of the Libyan forces have defected shouldnt this officially be a coup d'etat by now?

Bakerofish wrote:seriously...can anyone give me a source for this "great military revolt"?

so far the only confirmation im getting is that ONE MILITARY UNIT defected

one. unit.

thats anywhere between 70-200 soldiers

thats not a lot.

ive been googling and come up dry

Really? If you came up dry its because you don't know how to use search engines.

Here's an official statement from a Libyan general.

If the military were all on Gaddfi's side, then there would be no civilian control of anythin;. especially if we assume, as you have, that military support means that civilians cannot overthrow the state.

Then there's the fact that several major military bases are in territory controlled by revolutionaries, note the map.

That's all on the front page of Google following a search for "Libya military revolt", and that's all before we even talk about whether or not the language of reporters accurately reflects the makeup of the opposition; ie. military men become generic opposition when military loyalty is split.

Bakerofish wrote:
im thinking if a "good chunk" or "majority" of the Libyan forces have defected shouldnt this officially be a coup d'etat by now?

No, for several reasons, but the two most important are:

1) The classification of a coup is as much about politics as it is about accuracy.

2) Its not just the military that is involved in the current revolt.

*facepalm*

your links prove nothing. my searches came up with those and i ignored them because of that. they do not prove that a "majority" or "good chunk" of the army defected.

you have ONE general URGING the military to revolt. yes this may have resulted in some of them defecting but i dont see the "majority" defecting

unless you count 200 people or so defecting from a force of about 100,000 (last military approximate of available gaddafi forces) as majority.

and these "bases" can barely be even called that. they look like holes in the ground. Its easier to believe that the libyan army just let those go because theyre:

a: indefensible
b: insignificant

if a good "majority" of the army actually defected wouldnt the conflicts be bloodier?

its also very hard to believe that if a "majority" of the Libyan army has defected, that the Libyan airforce was largely exemot from this. yes you got TWO pilots defecting...we should be hearing more. and if there were more then there would be a lot less jets and helicopters bombing people.

if a "majority" of the armed forces have joined the revolt wouldnt it make sense that theyd form a coalition and start making more coordinated strikes?

this "majority" looks more like wishful thinkiing than anything.

now lets assume that your links completely shut me down (right) you still havent addressed the elephant in the room:

you cannot prove that neutralizing the air capabilities of gaddafi means that the rebels win.

they still have to deal with the significant ground forces that gaddafi holds.

if gaddafi doesnt have significant ground forces why dont the rebels lay seige to the capital?

surely if you have a "majority" of the army joining your cause laying seige to the capital would be possible right?

"because they have bombers!!" you say.

bombers are no use when the fighting is at your doorstep. when your bombs are about 4-10 METERS short of your taget (which is about as big as a building) and STILL be considered accurate i dont think youd be smart to use bombers when the fighting is at your doorstep.

seriously...

Automatically Appended Next Post:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/41759498/ns/business-consumer_news/

okay i double checked my numbers and i got a more recent source

so 12,000 loyal troops plus mercs flown in from east africa.

so a lot smaller than i first mentioned...but then how are the rebel forces? 2,000 largest gathering?

key part from the link is here:

"We underestimate the degree of loyalty in the security forces," warns Shashank Joshi, Associate Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute. "The defections appear to be patchwork and possibly along tribal lines. The units that matter, such as Khamis's 32nd Brigade, are holding together.

I mean, how are some people not getting this? Seriously? How badly informed is it possible to be before jumping onto the internet to spout half-baked opinions?

One guy even said that the best way to stop the conflict was to start an even bigger conflict! Cute. Seriously, I want to put that guy in my pocket and carry him around for little while, occasionally getting him out to show to my friends.

It's this simple - pro-Gadaffi forces are bombing ammunition dumps in an effort to slow the rebellion, they're also allegedly bombing civilians. Air power is Gadaffi's one trump card - remove it, and the conflict boils down to a large group of poorly-armed and poorly-trained rebels vs. an ever dwindling group of slightly less poorly-armed and slightly less poorly-trained loyalists. The Libyan airforce is nowhere near a match for the British or French airforces on their own, nevermind in coalition with the might of the USAF. At the first sniff of that, there would be mass desertions amongst the Libyan airforce, as they would be aware that they were about to get eviscerated. This would probably spread to the wider Libyan military - they barely have the stomach for the fight as it is. Why else would Gadaffi be using mercenaries? Remove Libyan air capabilities and the conflict could then be played out with a win for the rebels without western boots ever hitting the sand.

This is a different situation to Iraq - there was no popular revolt culminating in western intervention, just an attempt to impose democracy on a country that wasn't ready for it. Libya is a real opportunity to intervene in the right way - the people want it, they hate the current regime, and it won't require western boots on the ground to achieve a change of that regime.

Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs, and actually has a proven track record of sponsoring terror.... Just saying.

Albatross wrote:One guy even said that the best way to stop the conflict was to start an even bigger conflict! Cute. Seriously, I want to put that guy in my pocket and carry him around for little while, occasionally getting him out to show to my friends.

i wouldnt want to be in your pocket as i dont know how often you change your pants. You want to stop the air conflict and just leave the ground fighting as is?

What happens when the rebels run out of supplies and ammunition? thats bound to happen sooner or later and im sure the Libyan forces can outlast them in that regard.

so you paradrop food and ammo here and there...kinda defeats the purpose of leaving them alone to sort it out isnt it?

dont you think a quick all out offensive is better than a drawn out war?

At the first sniff of that, there would be mass desertions amongst the Libyan airforce, as they would be aware that they were about to get eviscerated. This would probably spread to the wider Libyan military - they barely have the stomach for the fight as it is. Why else would Gadaffi be using mercenaries? Remove Libyan air capabilities and the conflict could then be played out with a win for the rebels without western boots ever hitting the sand.

This would be nice if this were true but history has proven you wrong several times. Somalian conflicts come to mind. If anything, when people are outgunned and cornered the fighting seems to get bloodier.

Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs, and actually has a proven track record of sponsoring terror.... Just saying.

so leaving the ground fighting to fester for a longer time would leave him enough time to consider using these is the better idea. okay. (wmd in this case being mustard gas)

As a quick note, the Libyan military is still in full control of their tank and armored forces. Air power isn't his only leg up.

ShumaGorath wrote:As a quick note, the Libyan military is still in full control of their tank and armored forces. Air power isn't his only leg up.

okay so you saying this and the exchange we had earlier leaves me thinking you're either trolling or you just dont know what youre talking about.

im going with the simpler explanation.

Bakerofish wrote:
your links prove nothing. my searches came up with those and i ignored them because of that. they do not prove that a "majority" or "good chunk" of the army defected.

I didn't say majority, I said good chunk, which is an indefinite amount, but one that would generally be considered significant.

Bakerofish wrote:
you have ONE general URGING the military to revolt. yes this may have resulted in some of them defecting but i dont see the "majority" defecting

Again, that's not what I said. Please attempt to read what is written.

Bakerofish wrote:
and these "bases" can barely be even called that. they look like holes in the ground. Its easier to believe that the libyan army just let those go because theyre:

a: indefensible
b: insignificant

Yeah, those bases that control the oil producing region of Libya are totally insignificant.

Bakerofish wrote:
if a good "majority" of the army actually defected wouldnt the conflicts be bloodier?

No, not necessarily. Defection doesn't necessarily indicate active combat.

Bakerofish wrote:
this "majority" looks more like wishful thinkiing than anything.

I didn't say majority. Good God, read the posts that you're responding to.

Bakerofish wrote:
you cannot prove that neutralizing the air capabilities of gaddafi means that the rebels win.

I didn't say that either. Read the posts that you're responding to.

Albatross wrote:
Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs...

Maybe, he ostensibly got rid of them, and most Western states agree on that.

Bakerofish wrote:

Albatross wrote:One guy even said that the best way to stop the conflict was to start an even bigger conflict! Cute. Seriously, I want to put that guy in my pocket and carry him around for little while, occasionally getting him out to show to my friends.

i wouldnt want to be in your pocket as i dont know how often you change your pants.

I'm not wearing any. Your move.

You want to stop the air conflict and just leave the ground fighting as is?

What I want doesn't make the slightest bit of difference. What I want, is for RoboThatcher to destroy the Libyan military with her lazer-eyes, but failing that, I'll just settle for whatever's realistic. The ground fighting will change with the intervention of foreign air power. Count on it. Confidence is important, especially in a conflict like this.

What happens when the rebels run out of supplies and ammunition? thats bound to happen sooner or later and im sure the Libyan forces can outlast them in that regard.

What are you basing that on?

dont you think a quick all out offensive is better than a drawn out war?

Not to be a dick about it or anything, but who are you advocating sending to fight in this crushing 'quick offensive'? The Czech military? Or will it be the Americans and Brits again?

At the first sniff of that, there would be mass desertions amongst the Libyan airforce, as they would be aware that they were about to get eviscerated. This would probably spread to the wider Libyan military - they barely have the stomach for the fight as it is. Why else would Gadaffi be using mercenaries? Remove Libyan air capabilities and the conflict could then be played out with a win for the rebels without western boots ever hitting the sand.

This would be nice if this were true but history has proven you wrong several times. Somalian conflicts come to mind. If anything, when people are outgunned and cornered the fighting seems to get bloodier.

When people are outgunned and cornered they usually die. And which specific Somalian conflicts are you referring to? If you could also outline what bearing they have on this discussion that would be a big help too...

Incidentally, Gadaffi actually has WMDs, and actually has a proven track record of sponsoring terror.... Just saying.

so leaving the ground fighting to fester for a longer time would leave him enough time to consider using these is the better idea. okay. (wmd in this case being mustard gas)

My point was that enforcing a no-fly zone would severely curtail his stay in power. So no, he wouldn't have more time to use them. Your alternative isn't an option which is being seriously considered by anyone in the international community, so the only other option is to 'wait and see'. Which is what we're doing now.

@Shuma - I've seen rebels driving tanks on the news, and they have anti-tank capabilities. It wouldn't be a cake walk, by any stretch, but it would be possible.

dogma wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:
a no fly zone will not end the turbulence. it ends the bombing of civilians. the turbulence will continue as long as gaddaffi and the libyans are at odds.

Yes, and one thing contributing to the turbulence is Gaddafi's air superiority.

I may have misunderstood this bit. were you countering or were you agreeing?

again, my point: an air initiative without a ground initiative to support it is a bad idea.

as for the "majority" and "good chunk" : Shuma specifically said "majority" and you said "good chunk"

what would be considered a "good chunk"?

does it still change what i said?

Any sort of ground initiative by western forces is a terrible idea, and is not going to happen, in any case.

Bakerofish wrote:
I may have misunderstood this bit. were you countering or were you agreeing?

again, my point: an air initiative without a ground initiative to support it is a bad idea.

I'm not making a qualitative comment at all, I'm simply saying that a no-fly zone would help anyone trying to depose Gaddafi.

Bakerofish wrote:
as for the "majority" and "good chunk" : Shuma specifically said "majority" and you said "good chunk"

what would be considered a "good chunk"?

does it still change what i said?

A "good chunk" is anything significant. It could be a matter of percentage or, as in this case, it could be a matter of situation. The General that defected, for example, oversaw lots of oil fields.

@ albatross

supplies: im basing this on the fact that the rebel holds are miles apart from each other, most of them crossing the desert. Im basing it on the fact that the rebels have no central structure that will handle logistics of supplies. Im basing it on the fact that the Libyan Military has the capital, the major outposts, the airfield, the harbors and major roads as well as the monetary means to gain supplies.

somalian conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
you might know this as blackhawk down. basically the somalians didnt have a significant air presence. the americans and the joint forces pretty much had them flat down beat there but that didnt mean the conflict ended because the somalians "lost the stomach for battle". quite the contrary. bloody war it was.

and to be clear im not advocating a crushing quick offensive. or thats half of what im saying. all im saying is that if people are going to help, it has to be all out or nothing.

as a side note: The Brits have sent out word that theyd be ready to deploy in 24hours notice if need be. so I guess someone else is advocating the 'decisive" offensive.

edit: okay so theyre saying its a humanitarian initiative. this will still involve ground troops and shooting people however.

Furthermore, I should note that the CNN video I linked to earlier, the CNN reporter was doing an interview with a former member of the military before Libya's government tried to bomb them (the missile landed less than fifty meters from the camera).

Bakerofish wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:As a quick note, the Libyan military is still in full control of their tank and armored forces. Air power isn't his only leg up.

okay so you saying this and the exchange we had earlier leaves me thinking you're either trolling or you just dont know what youre talking about.

im going with the simpler explanation.

I was posting that to Albatross, you sneaked a post in between ours. I wouldn't state that to you as you seem irrationally incapable of interfacing with situations that have nuances.

Bakerofish wrote:@ albatross

supplies: im basing this on the fact that the rebel holds are miles apart from each other, most of them crossing the desert. Im basing it on the fact that the rebels have no central structure that will handle logistics of supplies. Im basing it on the fact that the Libyan Military has the capital, the major outposts, the airfield, the harbors and major roads as well as the monetary means to gain supplies.

Really? Because their assets have been frozen for a week or so now.... I also think you're overstating the Libyan military's capabilities - again, they drafted in 50,000 Chadian mercenaries in to bolster their forces, and they STILL lost Benghazi. Tripoli is the only part of the country which Gadaffi still holds with any sort of firmness, and even that looks to be slipping slightly.

somalian conflict: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Mogadishu_(1993)
you might know this as blackhawk down. basically the somalians didnt have a significant air presence. the americans and the joint forces pretty much had them flat down beat there but that didnt mean the conflict ended because the somalians "lost the stomach for battle". quite the contrary. bloody war it was.

It was one battle involving tiny numbers of US troops.... I fail to see what that has to do with this.

edit: okay so theyre saying its a humanitarian initiative. this will still involve ground troops and shooting people however.

Will it? And here's me thinking it meant the opposite.

@albatross

you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs? they got 50,000 mercs as you said, how do you suppose theyll be paying them off? Im no expert in mercenary compensation but i dont think 50,00 mercs would just go without having some sort of payment upfront first. were all those mercs in Benghazi btw? Frozen assets mean nothing if you got means of moving goods around. I dont think any sort of no fly zone will prevent ships or trucks from moving to friendly countries to trade.

and the somalian conflict had both UN and US troops and i wouldnt call it a tiny number considering the scale of the confrontation. I bring up the somalian conflict because you think that a show of air superiority is enough to stabilize an area. It didnt do so for somalia, it didnt do so for Iraq and afghanistan. The fighting just went on regardless of how many planes went on bombing runs.

as for the Brits humanitarian effort: if the brits dont open fire even once then ill be wrong

Bakerofish wrote:@albatross

you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs?

Well, how do you think they would do it? Go round and pay them all individually? They are sourced. It's not the middle ages anymore - there are companies that do these sorts of things, some more scrupulous than others.

Albatross wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@albatross

you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs?

Well, how do you think they would do it? Go round and pay them all individually? They are sourced. It's not the middle ages anymore - there are companies that do these sorts of things, some more scrupulous than others.

and if their assets are frozen...how would these companies be paid? and would they really put those 50k troops if they knew there was a chance they wont get paid?

i really dont think these folks were given I.O.U.s

point here is if they can get 50,000 mercs then they have the means to get food and supplies. at least a better means than the rebels currently have. Organization talks among the rebels are breaking down as it is.

Rome fell because of its reliance on mercenaries, Libya is no different. Unlike soldiers, mercenaries have no reason to support a country except for the money they receive from that country. Remove the money and then the mercenaries will either leave, turn on the Libyan government, or loot the area in anger.

We don't want our troops in the area if that so happens. A no fly zone would be easy to establish over Libya because their military is nowhere near as developed as ours and mercenaries will most likely not be able to do anything much less want to do anything against an established military.

Like I said before the US NAVY rendered their air power useless against their ships simply by turning off the lights on the ships at night.

We don't need to sponsor them by giving them weapons that would most likely end up being used against us later(see Fidel Castro and Osama Bin Laden). We don't need to invade Libya because the rebels are doing fine enough on their own, we just need to make sure their flyboys stay on the ground and nothing does that quite like the F-18.

Bakerofish wrote:

Albatross wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:@albatross

you think a 3rd world country would rely on bank transactions to pay mercs?

Well, how do you think they would do it? Go round and pay them all individually? They are sourced. It's not the middle ages anymore - there are companies that do these sorts of things, some more scrupulous than others.

and if their assets are frozen...how would these companies be paid? and would they really put those 50k troops if they knew there was a chance they wont get paid?

i really dont think these folks were given I.O.U.s

point here is if they can get 50,000 mercs then they have the means to get food and supplies. at least a better means than the rebels currently have. Organization talks among the rebels are breaking down as it is.

You make a lot of assumptions. You're assuming they haven't already been paid, but you're also assuming that were ever going to be paid. I love how you said 'would they really put 50k troops in if there was a chance they won't get paid?' This is why I think you're adorable. Think about it - does Gadaffi strike you as a particularly scrupulous individual?



Perhaps he's the sort of desperate guy who decides to commit a whole load of foreign mercenaries, and only worries about how he's going to pay them if he wins?

The point is, you don't know. Neither do I. What we DO know is that the Libyan airforce is bombing supply dumps, and that is slowing the rebellion. It's worth remembering that the rebels looked pretty unstoppable early in the conflict because they were confident. The army was rattled, and lost Libya's second city and major port - and this is with the massive advantages you seem to think they have. Now things seem to be grinding to stalemate, the rebels need an injection of confidence and the no fly zone would achieve this by removing a pretty serious obstacle to rebel progress.

A quick comparison of our air power vs theirs.

Their fighter: Mirage F1AD, introduced in 1973.


Our Naval fighter: FA-18 Super Hornet, introduced 1999.


Easy win for us.

Are the F22 and F35 not deployed on carriers?

Bakerofish wrote:all im saying is that if people are going to help, it has to be all out or nothing.

Should I take this to mean that if we don't invade, we shouldn't put in place a no fly zone?

Why do you hate the libyan people?

ShumaGorath wrote:Are the F22 and F35 not deployed on carriers?

Nope, F-22 is only a land based aircraft, and the F-35 is still yet to be introduced. As I recall it's a bit of a problem over here in the UK cause the UK is retiring its Harriers, which gives the UK aircraft carriers that have no aircraft to launch.

As for the central debate, a no-fly zone, (or better yet, air support for the rebels) WOULD be a significant asset for the rebellion. The Libyan military has tanks, artillery and air power on its side, a no fly zone takes away one of those key components, and arguably the only component the rebels can't retaliate against. They can RPG tanks, and overrun artillery batteries, but they can't retaliate against Mirages flying thousands of feet above them.

We get rid of the Libyans airpower, and we've helped the rebels. We bomb Libyan artillery and tanks, and we help them out even more. We'd likely be able to pull this off with a minimum of casualties...will we lost some people? Probably. But that can't be helped.

As for Mogadishu...that really doesn't count. To be honest, the US Military was plain idiotic in its planning for that battle: they launched the operation in the broad daylight, they had ONE rescue helicopter for the whole operation...in short we were arrogant, and we paid the price.

you guys are overestimating the effect of air power in this conflict. The real danger bombings have is to civilians and fixed structures that have no capability to get out of the way. this is not a battle thats going to be won by air. If thats true Iraq, Afghanistan and Somalia wouldve folded earlier.

the real fight will be on the ground...where libyans would be dying

@albatross
am i the only one making assumptions here? at least mine are reasonable ones. unless youre saying the assumption that 50,000 people (armed ones at that) are going to war with no guarantee of payment and just doing it based on a despot's word of honor is a reasonable assumption?

or that a GOVERNMENT AND MILITARY FORCE do not have means of securing food and supplies better than a ragtag bunch of rebels is a reasonable assumption?

please.

securing food and supplies is infinitely easier than getting 50,000 mercs. especially since you have to feed and supply those 50,00 mercs in the first place since the Libyan government was able to secure that then its a reasonable assumption that they would be sitting well on supplies better than the rebels. at least until a direct intervention leads to rebels being supplied.

yes i dont know this for sure. but im making an educated guess here. attack my points if you must and ill respect you but if you're just going to resort to ridicule when your counterpoints are flimsier than mine then lets just agree to disagree.


@warboss tzoo

seriously? thats what youre getting from my posts? when ive been talking about making the conflict as short as possible? dude. I bring up Somalia again. During the beginning the US was there assisting in a humanitarian capacity but after losing a unit (Black hawk down) the US government decided to leave Somalia on its own. The conflict is still as bloody as it began. Tell me if in hindsight the half measure presented here actually helped address the root problem.

yes i believe that they should help all out or not at all.

because if they go half assed then they're just wasting the lives of the folks who may die due to this humanitarian effort. theyre also just going to watch, secure in the fact that they "helped" when folks on the ground are dying in preventable numbers.

You can't underestimate air power, look at the Russians in Afghanistan. The Russians were winning their war because of the fact that the Hinds scared the living gak out of them. When we introduced Stinger missiles that could take these helicopters out the Russians began to lose.

If we remove the only tactical asset the government of Libya has(air power) then the rebels will be rejuvenated in their own efforts and the Libyan government won't have any distinct advantage.

Comparing this to 'Black Hawk Down' is also a foolish move. First of all the mission was failed in 'Black Hawk Down' and after seeing their fellow soliders mutilated and dragged through the streets the majority of out troops there wanted to go out and do some damage. Clinton didn't want to bomb the city for some reason and our troops moved out unable to avenge their fallen brothers. Two different scenarios overall as well.

Its like comparing the genocide in Darfur with the aid given to Haiti after the earthquake.

The government relies on its citizens for supplies, when the citizens say that they don't want to give the government supplies bad things can happen, bad things that can cause those citizens to join the rebels. Look at Brazil and any other third world nation to see the effects of rebels.