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.

@halo

qualify "only tactical asset" please. The Libyan Military have mercs, supplies, trained men, tanks, mustard gas etc...

shut down air. fine. no more planes.

what then? Rebels win? Yay.

I wish it were that easy man. seriously.

again im not saying dont do the no fly. while theyre at it6 though they might as well drop a few bombs on gaddafis head on the way to the radar sites

Bakerofish wrote:@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.

So again, you think that we since we aren't going to invade, we shouldn't put the no fly zone in place, despite it being a measure which would, in and of itself, help the civilian population and the rebels against Gaddaffi. I really don't see why you hate the Libyan people.

@warboss

because the "no fly zone only" option will prolong a war for years when it could be done in months?

seriously. say that i hate them one more time...im not convinced you're stupid yet

attack my points. dont attack me.

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

because the "no fly zone only" option will prolong a war for years when it could be done in months?

Let's assume that we won't invade, since it's almost certainly not going to happen. (And even if it were more than a distantly remote possibility, it'd be a horrible idea for numerous reasons that have been outlined several times in this very thread, but you've ignored them each and every time, so I'm not going over old ground again.)

A no fly zone and no invasion, or no no fly zone and no invasion. Which one will help the civilians and rebels more?

If it's the former, why do you want to hurt the rebels?

Bakerofish wrote:@warboss

because the "no fly zone only" option will prolong a war for years when it could be done in months?

seriously. say that i hate them one more time...im not convinced you're stupid yet

attack my points. dont attack me.

That is the weakest of your points. The no fly zone will not make the war any longer than it already would be, and would likely make it shorter by removing one of the key assets the government has. If we step it up from 'no fly' to 'close air support' we make the war even shorter.

Gadaffi is already on the backfoot. He's lost most of his country and is holed up in Tripoli. This war will be over in a few weeks at most, and even shorter if we install no fly and CAS support for the rebels.

But yes, please shoe me how making a 'no fly zone' will somehow hurt the rebels and make this war already going decidedly in their favor turn agains them?

i dont want to hurt the rebels gaddafi does.

take your righteous indignation to the side for a bit and do not think of this in terms of "good guys" or "bad guys" but in terms of lives.

the rebels are not an official group. one way or another if they feel like theyre losing they WILL quit.

if they quit sooner less civilians will die. rebels will die but thats what they got themselves into

if they win sooner less civilians will die. this is the "ideal"

if you prolong the war more civilians wiill die. more rebels will die. more soldiers will die. the only ones who gain are gaddafi and the mercs. The no fly zone will protract this conflict further because you put everyone on more even ground.

when youre a goat herder or a farmer who has to eke out a living day by day you have no care for lofty ideals as freedom, rights and country because your first thought is to feed yourself and your family.

when youre hungry democracy is the LEAST of your worries.

you cannot feed your family when you're dead or theres a war.

.....That doesn't prove anything at all. Where is the link between 'providing just a no fly zone' and 'months and months of brutal warfare'. There is none, and a no-fly zone will help them end this war sooner.

The rebels are WINNING they are not going to go home any time soon.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Gadaffi is already on the backfoot.

see... heres when im hesitant. The reason that Gaddafi is losing ground is because he has no quick way to mobilize his troops (source: CNN) most of his troops are still holed up in tripoli and his major bases.

if the rebels make an offensive on Tripoli and start winning there then i will share your optimism.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
i really wish this would turn out as a cinderella story and that im wrong on all points. i sincerely do.

i would dearly love to see the rebels keep the momentum

but i remember other times when the underdog won and ejected the superior power (Vietnam- Viet Ciong vs US and Afghanistan vs Soviets) and i remember to keep my enthusiasm in check.

History has not been without a grim sense of humor

Bakerofish wrote:if you prolong the war more civilians wiill die. more rebels will die. more soldiers will die. the only ones who gain are gaddafi and the mercs. The no fly zone will protract this conflict further because you put everyone on more even ground.

The only one in the area with the ability to project force aerially is Gaddaffi.

How, exactly, does he gain from having that neutralised?

How do the rebels not gain from having that neutralised?

I really don't understand your reasoning. Not putting the no fly zone in place will protract the fighting: Gaddaffi will have the ability to bomb the gak out of the populace with near impunity. Removing that ability is a game changer.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Do you think that putting the no fly zone in place won't help the rebels keep the momentum?

WARBOSS TZOO wrote:
Do you think that putting the no fly zone in place won't help the rebels keep the momentum?

it will. but theyll hit their brick wall in tripoli. take a city without a unified front. try it. Theres already rumblings of a rift within the rebls as the defectors want a unified front but the rerbels want to keep the integrity of their rebellion by putting a "non military" to lead.. the rebels currently dont have a unified front.

additional points above.

Gadaffi IS on the backfoot. When you have to bomb your own capital to try and stay in power, you're losing. When you have to call in 50,000 foreign mercenaries because you can't trust your own military, you're losing. The rebels control most of the country, and the key oil refineries, even if Tripoli does not fall, they have enough control to stabilize their country. As I recall, they've already started to form their own government in Benghazi.

The main benefit the Libyan loyalists have is airpower and artillery....Western air power can shut both of those down. There is a strong anti-Gadaffi movement in Tripoli, it's not going to be the brick wall you say it will.It will be bloody, but there is no doubt that Tripoli will fall.

There'd be less bloodshed on both sides, if the West were to impose the no fly zone, and even less if Western aircraft were to attack Libyan loyalist positions. Like I siad, blood will be shed, but like the nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there will be less blood shed than the alternatives.

@chris

again my whole argument here is "if theyre gonna help, help all the way"

ever stop to think if the no fly was the best solution then why nobody has done it yet? there are tons of reasons and one of them is if its an efficient measure to whats happening now. When one plane costs 20 mil and can burn through fuel in gallons per secondyou have to make sure youre putting those planes to good use. A lot of folks dont see the efficiency, cost wise, threat wise andtime wise.

and heres another thing: a no fly zone would not stop artillery. that goes against what a no fly zone is. a no fly zone would also do little for choppers who can fly below radar and be out of the scene before a jet can even scramble.

more folks have died to groundfighting and artillery than the bombings.

the conflict is going on for far too short a time to call anyone "losing"

once rebels have taken Tripoli then ill rest easy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
again lets keep in mind that the rebels, at the end of the day are farmers, secretaries, mechanics etc. One even going as far as saying "ive never been at wa but ive watched a lot of action movies'

even if they are bolstered by "a good chunk" of gaddafis military (the numbers are still fuzzy but estimates at no more than a few hundred people) you're still taking a city

A CITY

it took the US armed forces around 19 days to take Baghdad. thats with planes, tanks, bombardment by sea and air and well trained troops equipped with the best the world has to offer.

i think its a reasonable assumption to think that "action hero" and his cousins will take longer than that.

cheer for rebels. pray for them. but dont think they have this in the bag yet.

that is all

If you note, I'm saying we should provide CAS in addition to the no-fly zone. Not to mention, 'flying under the radar' only works when the radar isn't looking down on you. A Western no fly zone would no doubt be controlled by an AWACS bird, that'd be able to keep an eye on a good chunk of the Libyan coastal regions. More importantly, there would be a standing CAP, not just scrambling fighters.

As for why no one's done anything yet? They're still debating what to do. RIght now, the west cares much more about getting its civillians out of Libya, and they're still arguing over what to do. Russia and China say 'nothing' the US and UK say 'let's do SOMETHING', and the Libyan resistance is asking for air support. They still don't know WHAT to do yet.

The problem with your argument is that you see it only 2 ways, either we help with troops on the ground, or we don't help at all. There are shades of grey in foreign assistance, and it's not worth it to go 100% either way. Air support is no doubt the easiest way to provide help to the rebels, but keeping our footprint to a minimum.

I'd say that once you have to bomb your own capital, call in foreign troops cause your own military is defecting from you in droves, and you've lost control of most of your country, you are losing.

Edit: The fall of Baghdad took 9 days, (4/3/2003 to 4/12/2003). Baghdad is a city of 6 million people, Tripoli is a city of 1 million. There is a major difference between the two. The fall of Tripoli will be long slow and bloody, but we can lessen the blood shed with Western air power. There is no denying this fact.

@chris

my opinion of a black and white view on this matter is because in the past interventions made by the US they were all grey and none of them worked as planned. Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Middle Eastern Conflicts...heck even in my country's shores (not that im not grateful, but the Philippine -US partnership is a "joint effort" so yes the US troops are at a more aggressive stance than theyve taken with the others - heck id take the US interference in the Philippines as more successful than most because theyre actually actively seeking out insurgents. this more aggressive stance has definitely quieted the southern islands a lot)

i agree they should take it a step further than no fly chris. I agree wholeheartedly.

but again...until Tripoli is taken, saying rebels are winning is just asking for it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
baghdad was taken by US troops with full gear

Tripoli's liberators are mainly farmers and workers

yes i agree there is a difference there

before some wiseguy cracks that there have been liberations done by farmers and workers in the past: the reason theyre so remarkable is because theyre so UNEXPECTED. they succeeded beyond any reasonable odds would have them. to hope that this happens in Libya is fine. to EXPECT it is foolish

Bakerofish wrote:
but again...until Tripoli is taken, saying rebels are winning is just asking for it.

Tripoli is almost irrelevant. Sure, its the capital, but it doesn't have controlling influence of any of the material assets available to the state. Gaddafi can stay in Tripoli for as long as he wants and we'll just start paying the rebels for the oil they now control.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Bakerofish wrote:
before some wiseguy cracks that there have been liberations done by farmers and workers in the past: the reason theyre so remarkable is because theyre so UNEXPECTED. they succeeded beyond any reasonable odds would have them. to hope that this happens in Libya is fine. to EXPECT it is foolish

Violent uprisings by the middle class have a 40% success rate, roughly, though they rarely create material change. This isn't a peasant revolt, which almost never happen, and almost never succeed when they do happen.

Korea, Vietname and the Middle East wars were all full on interventions of the type you are proposing. They only way they could have gotten even stronger is if we started tossing nukes around. As dogma said, the rebels have de facto contorl of the country, they control the oil fields, and the refineries. Once they set up their government, there is nothing stopping them from asking for recognition...heck, the Libyan ambassador to the UN is already on the rebels side.

When will this guy stop? Baker, you're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

No fly zone would only help. We don't need to do anything else because we aren't fething IDIOTS.

You think that "weaklings" are people that actually have a brain, unlike your republican bullshitters like Bush.

Given that he's Filipino, that doesn't really work...

It's being reported that a diplomatic mission from the UK has reached the rebel leadership in Benghazi. It was originally reported that 6 SAS troops had been captured by rebels en route to making contact with the leaders, but now the MOD is saying that they are in contact with the team (whoever they are)...

The plot thickens...

The world ain't black and white, Baker. Never has been.

Karon wrote:When will this guy stop? Baker, you're wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

No fly zone would only help. We don't need to do anything else because we aren't fething IDIOTS.

You think that "weaklings" are people that actually have a brain, unlike your republican bullshitters like Bush.

Karon if youve been reading im not saying no fly would not help. im saying its not enough. who did i call weaklings?

@dogma
Tripoli is relevant. Gaddafi is relevant. Unless he steps down he is still the head of state according to law. Buying any asset of a country siezed by a rebel group is illegal.

@melissia
cant we lean towards a darker grey then?

@chris
thanks for taking the time to dissect my points rather than attacking me.

The rebels cant "take control" of a government if the current government is still holding on to power. the rebels cant make use of the resources the country has legally. the Libyan ambassador is relevant in getting OUTSIDE help which isnt happening yet. de facto or not we cant say that Gaddafi is tapped out yet. heck if I were in his place ill do the same. Ill let the rebels hold ground, ill let go of things i cant defend and make this a battle of attrition.

currently, gaddafi still has sea and air access. You cannot stop non military ships and planes from doing its business unless youre actively declaring war on the country. you can put in check points and delay, but full out prevention aint happening on a legal basis.

this isnt a battle in wide open plains with troops marching to face each other. this is going to be city fighting and the rebels have NO WAY of getting Gaddafi out of his hole short of calling air strikes or assassination.

and with the recent news of SAS presence and others...they seem to be going with a more covert approach.

heres an honest question to everyone:

is assassinating Gaddafi a viable option in a legal sense? say he gets shot "by his own troops" will the UN allow the rebels to take control officially or will the succession follow chain of command?

The rebels have the 100 ability to take over the government. International relations is all about recognition, and right now the world recognizes Gadaffi as the leader of Libya...that's why it's so significant that the British are negotiating with the Libyan rebel government in Benghazi, it means that the West may recognize and begin dealing with the rebels as if they are the government of Libya. And who's going to stop them if they do? Gadaffi? Yeah right.

Gadaffi is holed up in Tripoli, the rebels have sea and air access through other ports. If the West recognizes the rebels and the government, and begins doing business with them, they'll protect their new ally. Remember, the last time the US declared 'war' was against Hungary and Romania back in WW2. Every single action since then has been a Military Enagement Authorized by Congress or the UNSC.

In short, the rebels control the country, and are forming their own government. Even if Tripoli doesn't fall (which it will) the rebels can form their own government and be negotiated with. That's the reality of the situation. In international relations, what's 'legal' doesn't really matter, what the great powers say is true is. Even if de jure Gadaffi controls Libya, but the rebels are in de facto control by both their own military conquests, and the recognition of the west...who's going to say that isn't so?

@chris

the UN? Libya is STILL part of the UN even if theyre getting sanctioned for some of the things they did.

the purpose of the UN is to uphold common laws between countries and uphold and defend the sovereignity of its members

the UN cannot legally recognize the rebels if Gaddafi doesnt step down. to do so means that the UN is unimportant. there are some people who think that the UN is already unnecessary.

in international relations, LEGAL matters a lot.

remember folks its international laws that keep the world from becoming a grab bag for world powers. ever wonder why N. Korea is still there regardless of how fethed up it is? because they havent broken international laws. They keep using international laws to rationalize trying to get S. Korea back in fact. but its these same laws that keep the North from actually trying something really stupid as well.

If the UN says they're recognizing the rebels, who'se going to stop them? If the US, UK, France, Italy, China, Russia, and every other major power says they're going to recognize the rebels, who's going to stop them? The answer is: no one. If the world does not recognize Gadaffi as the leader of Libya, then he isn't the leader of Libya, he's the owner and leader of a small part of Libya under his direct military control, but that doesn't matter.

Actually, if we place embargos on a nation we can actively prevent any supplies from reaching them.

Their military IS leaving Ghadafi, in fact one of the bombers ordered to bomb the protestors crashed because the crew bailed out instead of carrying out the mission.

As stated before, when you have to rely on foreign mercenaries and bombing your own city you've already lost the war.

In relation to the farmers fighting the government, the rebels do have weapons like anti-aircraft but not mush in terms of heavy artillery. They have shot down one or two loyalist bombers already but they need help. Its also important to remember history. Look up the reason for celebrating Cinco De Mayo.

ChrisWWII wrote:If the UN says they're recognizing the rebels, who'se going to stop them? If the US, UK, France, Italy, China, Russia, and every other major power says they're going to recognize the rebels, who's going to stop them? The answer is: no one. If the world does not recognize Gadaffi as the leader of Libya, then he isn't the leader of Libya, he's the owner and leader of a small part of Libya under his direct military control, but that doesn't matter.

thats not how it works. they just cant "decide" how things will be.

getting recognized as a country is a lot more involved than you think. Heck, Taiwan for the longest time is still technically not a country even if it has its own government independent of China.

claiming a country isnt as simple as stabbing a flag into the ground and proclaiming "mine!". things have changed since Magellan.

No, because a No-Fly-Zone is enough. We don't need to do anything else. We don't need to get involved here.

We don't need troops there, we don't need to bomb gaddaffi, we don't need to do anything but take away their single largest advantage.

halonachos wrote:
In relation to the farmers fighting the government, the rebels do have weapons like anti-aircraft but not mush in terms of heavy artillery. They have shot down one or two loyalist bombers already but they need help. Its also important to remember history. Look up the reason for celebrating Cinco De Mayo.

cinco de mayo? the "unlikely" victory of the mexicans against the french? the reason it being remarkable because it came out of left field?

for every underdog victory in history there are dozens of victories brought about superior numbers, positioning, supplies and firepower.

you guys make it sound like winning a war is easy. What legal basis would there be for putting an embargo on Libya? And if you do find one, will every country FOLLOW suit? Just because the US declares embargo doesnt mean Libya cant trade with anyone else.

you cannot tell me the military is leaving gaddafis side just because one or two bombers decided to defect. or a unit. seriously. There are defectors but the actual numbers arent enough to call this cut and dry.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Karon wrote:No, because a No-Fly-Zone is enough. We don't need to do anything else. We don't need to get involved here.

We don't need troops there, we don't need to bomb gaddaffi, we don't need to do anything but take away their single largest advantage.

okay understood that you feel that way. i can respect that

but also respect that taking away the air advantage doesnt mean sure victory. a lot of folks here are acting like thats all it takes.

Bakerofish wrote:

thats not how it works. they just cant "decide" how things will be.

getting recognized as a country is a lot more involved than you think. Heck, Taiwan for the longest time is still technically not a country even if it has its own government independent of China.

claiming a country isnt as simple as stabbing a flag into the ground and proclaiming "mine!". things have changed since Magellan.

Yes they can. For a while the US recognized Taiwan as the government of all of China, and refused to recognize the PRC. Some states refuse to recognize existence of the State of Israel. Even then, all these situations are subservient to who has de facto control of anything. Right now, the Libyan rebels have de facto control of the country. If we recognize them as the new government of Libya, then they are the new government of Libya. They have internal recognition of their control by most of the country, and if granted externatl recognition they'd have the qualities to make them a new state.

Point it, we don't have to follow any legal procedures to oust Gadaffi. We didn't have to follow legal procedures to oust Sadaam or the Taliban, we simply changed the situation on the ground, and recognized the new government we installed.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Bakerofish wrote:

thats not how it works. they just cant "decide" how things will be.

getting recognized as a country is a lot more involved than you think. Heck, Taiwan for the longest time is still technically not a country even if it has its own government independent of China.

claiming a country isnt as simple as stabbing a flag into the ground and proclaiming "mine!". things have changed since Magellan.

Yes they can. For a while the US recognized Taiwan as the government of all of China, and refused to recognize the PRC. Some states refuse to recognize existence of the State of Israel. Even then, all these situations are subservient to who has de facto control of anything. Right now, the Libyan rebels have de facto control of the country. If we recognize them as the new government of Libya, then they are the new government of Libya. They have internal recognition of their control by most of the country, and if granted externatl recognition they'd have the qualities to make them a new state.

Point it, we don't have to follow any legal procedures to oust Gadaffi. We didn't have to follow legal procedures to oust Sadaam or the Taliban, we simply changed the situation on the ground, and recognized the new government we installed.

ack dude stop.

the US refused to recognize CHINA? what parallel universe are you talking about here?

the US had no legal reason to oust Saddam? what the heck was that WMD hullaballoo about?

seriously Chris im sorry but you're misinformed on all counts here.