France already recognized the rebels as formally representing Lybia, isn't it? So that France would not see any future with Gaddafi regime into power. It will result a change of the regime. The problem is, which new regime? Very few information about this.I suspect this will resolve into a regime change mission eventually.
No-fly zone over Libya
- Thread starter lucinator
- Start date
The US has been trying to kill Gaddafi for years even tried bombing once. How do you plan to kill this guy? The fact that he has been around for so long with all of the West trying to kill him, shows that he knows how to survive and take care of his own protection.
The American tried to knock him off, the Brits reportedly tried, and so did various dissident groups, it's part of the game
. Over the past few decades Gadaffi has come full circle, from fighting the Chadians, theTanzanians, the Egyptians, the Americans, and now the 'West'. From being the tyrant of the Middle East and a 'threat' to stability in the region in the 80's to being welcomed as a 'friend' and 'partner' after giving up his nukes a few years ago, back to being the 'bad boy' of the region again. He did his best to avoid the French in Chad but he wasn't able to avoid it this time around.I think some of you should read about Executive Order 11905 and 12036. We have not been trying to deliberately "kill him". Nor would that be legal. The intent has been to isolate and create the conditions for coup or resignation.
-DA
-DA
Grand Danois
Entertainer
Four Danish F-16s have returned to base after 5 hour mission over Libya loaded up with ATG ordnance.
IronsightSniper
Member
This will make for some great bombing montage video someday.
Quite clearly the air defenses of key zones and units have been already heavily suppressed. limited or even destroyed.
Lybia for the most very well suited for ATG missions. It is vast, sparsely populated open terrain with excellent flight weather. with great visibility. The loyalist forces should have been for the better part quite distinct, and especially the heavy weapons should have been rather easy to find, ID and target. And once the likely weak local air defense of the attacking force had been dealt with, there was not much they could do against a concentration of allied power.
Interception missions at land, sea and air can also greatly influenced the ability of the loyalists to continue the fight, especially in the east. The much used insertion by air should be now pretty much impossible, at least near the coast areas.
As the leader of Libya and the head of the Libyan armed forces, insn't Gadaffi a legitimate target? Are you saying that whilst it would be 'legal' to hit a certain military target, knowing that Gadaffi might nor might not be there, it would not be 'legal' to hit a specific target with the sole purpose of killing Gadaffi?
The US claim that this isn't a regime change operation, so Ghedaffi isn't a target.
At least for the time being.
Thanks, all this beauracratic, legal stuff has always been confusing to me. In Steve Coll's 'Ghost Wars' there was mention of supplying the Afghan resistance with sniper rifles but not being able to provide scopes as the rifles would then be used to assassinate Soviet officers, which would be illegal.
Interesting article from the former CIA Islamabad Head of Station.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865.html
The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs has admitted the possibility of Gadaffi staying in power. Also something about jets from Qatar moving into place.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/americas/2011/03/201132015244765379.html
RAF G4's flew all the all from Norfolk for strikes on Libya.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/allies-claim-nofly-zone-success-2247567.html
Last edited:
Sturm,
For the US targeting Gaddafi would require a declaration of war. Also consider for a minute the creators of all the legalese lawfare and who it benefits. Gaddafi has no power to stop western fighters performing no fly zones and little ability to defend against strikes on his forces and infrastructure. He does however have considerable asymmetric capability as demonstrated in the past. By not targeting him it gives him and others like him incentive to play by certain rules out of a sense of self preservation. Rules that ensure western advantages. Remove those rules and you add the arrow of assassination to Gaddafi's quiver of asymmetric arrows. Why would we want that? Always play to your strengths...
-DA
For the US targeting Gaddafi would require a declaration of war. Also consider for a minute the creators of all the legalese lawfare and who it benefits. Gaddafi has no power to stop western fighters performing no fly zones and little ability to defend against strikes on his forces and infrastructure. He does however have considerable asymmetric capability as demonstrated in the past. By not targeting him it gives him and others like him incentive to play by certain rules out of a sense of self preservation. Rules that ensure western advantages. Remove those rules and you add the arrow of assassination to Gaddafi's quiver of asymmetric arrows. Why would we want that? Always play to your strengths...
-DA
If I'm mistaken, someone feel free to correct me.
I think targeting officers only is against the Rules of War... don't know if there's actually a specific document to enphasize this... or it's just commonly accepted...
Pointless to say that "rule" is out of the picture ever since the US decided to go with the card deck idea...
Muammar al Gaddafi stepped down as leader of Libya formally in 1979. And the head of the armed forces is one of his sons.
Is nuking that absurd? (Or at least its threat?)
We should clearly state that a WMD attack upon the US or its intrests or allies will be dealt with in kind. It’s not that BS…
Ok, let’s not outright discount the possibility that our policy on WMD retaliation should at least be reiterated (within the context of nuclear and WMD deterrence). We KNOW that Libya has Mustard Gas, and given the state of our intel networks, who knows what else...
We should clearly state that a WMD attack upon the US or its intrests or allies will be dealt with in kind. It’s not that BS…
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Khadafi Finish ??
Why so many comment in this thread ( and I even peep to other forums also), that seems to say Khadafi is Finish, or the end of him already in sight ??
His Army still winning in the ground, and despites some 'little' fire crackers that the west already 'loob' from the air and sea to his possitions, no Western ground troops is imminent (ie, occupation forces).
I do hope nobody have illusions that just by 'no-fly zone' can pull down khadafi..Afterall even when Saddam still under a decade of No-Fly zone, he's still can crush rebbelions to him. Is still a long way from finish for khadafi's folks..
Now the West already play as Libyan Revolutionary movement Air Forces...will the west going to re-armed the Libyan rebels..or even go further by committing forces in the ground ?? I like to see if Sarkozy dare to send his ground troops in Libya, considering he's the only one that already acknowledge the Rebels as Legitimate Government of Libya
Why so many comment in this thread ( and I even peep to other forums also), that seems to say Khadafi is Finish, or the end of him already in sight ??
His Army still winning in the ground, and despites some 'little' fire crackers that the west already 'loob' from the air and sea to his possitions, no Western ground troops is imminent (ie, occupation forces).
I do hope nobody have illusions that just by 'no-fly zone' can pull down khadafi..Afterall even when Saddam still under a decade of No-Fly zone, he's still can crush rebbelions to him. Is still a long way from finish for khadafi's folks..
Now the West already play as Libyan Revolutionary movement Air Forces...will the west going to re-armed the Libyan rebels..or even go further by committing forces in the ground ?? I like to see if Sarkozy dare to send his ground troops in Libya, considering he's the only one that already acknowledge the Rebels as Legitimate Government of Libya
That is by no means an assured outcome. All out air wars have an extremely poor record at ending conflicts. This is a fight that must be won in the streets not the skies. The rebels not only lack the strength to overpower the Libyan army, they are not a homogeneous enitity. The only thing keeping them from fighting each other is hate for Gaddafi. Kill him and you ensure a massive civil war. Air wars are effective when they are in support of ground and sea operations but not independently.
-DA
Ananda
The Bunker Group
Agree with this. No-Fly Zone at best can save Benghazi or Tobruk, but will have difficulty to save other rebel held cities that already surounded by Khadafi's forces. That's why I say on my posts, the no-fly zone will change little in the ground (unless it's follow by something else).