No-fly zone over Libya

[DarthAmerica]

Your reality is distinctly odd. You ignore anything inconvenient. Your conviction that Gaddafi has total control over the flow of information in the entire territory of Libya, for example, is bizarrely at odds with reality.

Given that, it's hard to take anything else you say seriously: "falsus in unum, falsus in omnibus".

My reality is based on experience in that part of the world and a crystal clear understanding of the impact collateral damage can have. I've seen what Libyans are watching on TV and I assure you that it is not painting the coalition in a good light. There is a DEEP seated resentment towards Western nations there and in particular Europe. If you choose to believe otherwise then that's your choice. Col. Gaddafi has been in power for more than 42 years and remains in power to this day. This is not a man who is ignorant of how to control the flow of information. For you to say that the Libyans "shrugged" off the deaths caused by collateral damage is proof enough to me that you have no real world understanding of what is happening. This is the kind of western centric thinking that often draws western nations into quagmires. Feel free though to not take it seriously now.

-DA

 

[swerve]

So . . . you're in Libya, & watching all the available Arabic-language TV channels? How well do you speak the language?

 

[Swampfox157]

It seems that the US is ending its participation in strikes against targets in Libya. So soon?

The prudence of this basically depends on how Qaddafi's forces are disposed. If he's not operating massed armor formations anymore, the Euros can likely handle this on their own. Systems like Typhoon and Rafale have a lack of anti-massed-armor capability, while USAF platforms like the F-15E and A-10A/C certainly have the ability to wipe out large columns of men and materiel. If we're just looking at fairly isolated targets and the enforcement of the UN1973 no-fly-zone, LGBs employed by Tornadoes and Rafales, and A2A weapons on basically everything, should be adequate. If it becomes necessary again, the USAF could easily dispatch F-15Es to tackle Qaddafi. We're pulling out of combat, but we can pop in again easily. The true question is whether or not NATO and/or the Arab League can run the show effectively without US combat assets.

 

[DarthAmerica]

So . . . you're in Libya, & watching all the available Arabic-language TV channels? How well do you speak the language?

Swerve,

You are being unnecessarily sarcastic. One does not need to be an Arabic speaker or in Libya to accurately access what is going on there. If that were the case then we are doomed since NONE of the military commanders in the coalition can say that either.

It doesn't really matter which one of us is right or wrong about who controls satellite broadcast in Libya. That's a tangent and only ONE of many methods Libyans use to get news. One of those methods is going to be the MK1 eyeball *and subsequently word of mouth. That's going to get interpreted by some negatively. Moreover Col. Gaddafi will spin this to his advantage. Since his intelligence and ministry of interior agents are actually on the ground, he's going to have a propaganda advantage via proximity and frequency. With 10 years of history in Afghanistan and 20 years in Iraq, I'm amazed that the effects of collateral damage is still so misunderstood by westerners.

I'm sorry Swerve but it's just flat wrong to assume common non military folks are going to calmly and rationally make objective assessments about why friends and family got blown up by accident. Incidents like this make for tremendous propaganda value. It helps to look at collateral damage via aerial bombardment like this. Both the coalition and Col. Gaddafi are in a fight for the hearts and minds of the Libyan population. The coalition communicates by killing the loyalist forces with it's bombs. When those bombs land on target the message is your protected. When they don't and friendly civilians and infrastructure are destroyed then the message gets lost as people suffer the immediate effects of the bombing for the promise of achieving something later. So for the civilian things get worse. The loyalist then say look at how your saviors regard you. They destroy your city and kill your relatives under the guise of protecting you when in reality they are truly only interested in plunder and conquest. This rhetoric resonates well in this region.

Have you studied this culture in any way?

-DA*

P.S. I speak the language well enough to say things like "stop", "show me your hands", "turn around", "don't talk" and "bomb". And I learned how to say those things the hard way.

 

[swerve]

The prudence of this basically depends on how Qaddafi's forces are disposed. If he's not operating massed armor formations anymore, the Euros can likely handle this on their own. Systems like Typhoon and Rafale have a lack of anti-massed-armor capability, .

Brimstone carried by Tornado. It was conceived for the specific purpose of destroying massed armour formations (it can also do individual tank-plinking) while avoiding getting too close, & has been used successfully in Libya.

The French (using Mirage 2000D & SEM as well as Rafale) have shown themselves capable of destroying columns of Libyan vehicles, including AFVs. The first raids, which broke the loyalist attack on Benghazi, were done by the French.

The largest massed formation which Gaddafi could muster could probably be wiped out in a single attack by Tornadoes flying from Italy. If he was foolish enough to assemble a mass of tanks, the RAF & AdlA crews would think Christmas had come early: fish & barrels come to mind.

 

[swerve]

Swerve,

You are being unnecessarily sarcastic. One does not need to be an Arabic speaker or in Libya to accurately access what is going on there. ...

It doesn't really matter which one of us is right or wrong about who controls satellite broadcast in Libya. ... With 10 years of history in Afghanistan and 20 years in Iraq, I'm amazed that the effects of collateral damage is still so misunderstood by westerners.

I'm sorry Swerve but it's just flat wrong to assume common non military folks are going to calmly and rationally make objective assessments about why friends and family got blown up by accident....

Have you studied this culture in any way?

-DA*

P.S. I speak the language well enough to say things like "stop", "show me your hands", "turn around", "don't talk" and "bomb". And I learned how to say those things the hard way.

My knowledge of the language peaked at 'very basic tourist' - much less than my tourist Turkish, &, I'm afraid, faded from not having been used for years. I've studied the cultures mostly from a distance, apart from some travelling in Arab countries, & studying, working & interacting socially with Arabs from several countries over 35 years. Arabs are diverse - Iraqis & Moroccans have to speak a 'standard Arabic' which is pretty much a foreign language to both of them to converse, & are divided by much more than just language. I once found myself in the interesting position of being accosted by a Tunisian glad to find another civilised person to talk to in what he saw as a poor, benighted & socially backward country - Egypt!)

The only reports we have from Libya of the reactions of family & friends to their nearest & dearest being killed & injured suggest that they are saddened, but not angry, & understand that they were accidents. Generalising from Iraq has some value, but should not be taken too far. Circumstances are different. We're there by invitation. We're not trying to conquer the country & impose a new government. We're not trying to suppress an insurgency. We've intervened (in practice, if not in theory) to assist a local army which has popular backing, & a nascent new administration which has created itself. None of this was true in Iraq.

Yes, if we start bombing wedding parties & the like, or occupy the country & thus provide an opportunity for the classic tactic of provoking retaliation, we'd arouse enmity, but I don't see either of those happening. Apart from large conventional military targets such as air bases & ammunition depots, we're bombing troops in a conventional war zone, where shelling by Gaddafi's troops is causing far more collateral damage. That affects people's perceptions.

BTW, Afghanistan is not Arab, & is culturally very distinct.

What matters in the debate about communications & mass media in Libya is that you were arguing from ignorance, but nevertheless would not retract. Having been demonstrated to be wrong, you now say that the whole thing does not matter. What's wrong with saying 'OK, I made a mistake'? That would increase your credibility.

 

[DarthAmerica]

My knowledge of the language peaked at 'very basic tourist' - much less than my tourist Turkish, &, I'm afraid, faded from not having been used for years. I've studied the cultures mostly from a distance, apart from some travelling in Arab countries, & studying, working & interacting socially with Arabs from several countries over 35 years. Arabs are diverse - Iraqis & Moroccans have to speak a 'standard Arabic' which is pretty much a foreign language to both of them to converse, & are divided by much more than just language. I once found myself in the interesting position of being accosted by a Tunisian glad to find another civilised person to talk to in what he saw as a poor, benighted & socially backward country - Egypt!)

The only reports we have from Libya of the reactions of family & friends to their nearest & dearest being killed & injured suggest that they are saddened, but not angry, & understand that they were accidents. Generalising from Iraq has some value, but should not be taken too far. Circumstances are different. We're there by invitation. We're not trying to conquer the country & impose a new government. We're not trying to suppress an insurgency. We've intervened (in practice, if not in theory) to assist a local army which has popular backing, & a nascent new administration which has created itself. None of this was true in Iraq.

Yes, if we start bombing wedding parties & the like, or occupy the country & thus provide an opportunity for the classic tactic of provoking retaliation, we'd arouse enmity, but I don't see either of those happening. Apart from large conventional military targets such as air bases & ammunition depots, we're bombing troops in a conventional war zone, where shelling by Gaddafi's troops is causing far more collateral damage. That affects people's perceptions.

BTW, Afghanistan is not Arab, & is culturally very distinct.

What matters in the debate about communications & mass media in Libya is that you were arguing from ignorance, but nevertheless would not retract. Having been demonstrated to be wrong, you now say that the whole thing does not matter. What's wrong with saying 'OK, I made a mistake'? That would increase your credibility.

Because I'm not arguing from ignorance nor have I made any mistake. You incorrectly assumed that unfiltered satellite TV to be the primary method of news. Moreover, you assumed, again incorrectly, that the report you saw is what Libyans have seen and even understand it. You're also making the additional mistake of assuming Libyan rebels have popular support. It is you who are brushing off the reality in order to fascilitate fantastic views of western aircraft swooping in to save the day with zero collateral marketing hype about brimstone missiles. Lastly, Im not doing this in an attempt to "increase credibility". War fighting is a way of life for me and my assessments are born from both practice AND theory. If you or anyone else thinks you know more about it than me so be it. It happens all the time and more often than not I'm dead on. But you'll see that in time. People always do...

-DA

 

[Scorpion82]

I agree with DA that we westerners shouldn't be of any illusion that we know what's going on there in the heads of those people. Media mostly present things the way to support local politics. Those people there think different, they aren't thinking along our lines and while someone filmed said he/she is sad, but not angry, what do the other millions of Libyans think about it? There isn't just one side and there is not even one truth.

 

[swerve]

Because I'm not arguing from ignorance nor have I made any mistake. You incorrectly assumed that unfiltered satellite TV to be the primary method of news. Moreover, you assumed, again incorrectly, that the report you saw is what Libyans have seen and even understand it.

-DA

I did not make any such assumptions. You have assumed that I did, through misreading of what I have written. Read back. I pointed out that satellite TV is widely available in Libya. It appears to be mostly unfiltered (i.e. direct from satellite, not through relays - look at any street view, & start counting dishes). That is not a claim that it is the primary source of news.

I did not assume that Libyans have seen the same reports I have, or understood them. Again, you have misread. Since I've been watching news in English, I expect few of them have seen & understood it in the original. What I did assume (& with good reason) is that a large number of Libyans have seen non-Libyan Arabic-language broadcasts. We know (as I reported) that Gaddafi has tried to jam Al Jazeera & some other Arabic broadcasts, which suggests he's worried that a lot of people are watching them, & has no other way of filtering satellite broadcasts. Since they are probably aware that state TV contains a lot of propaganda (much of it is very crude & amateurish, & rather obvious), he has good reason to worry.

I am surprised at the assumption you made that Gaddafi controls news access to the whole country, in an era of satellites, & when he has no control over a large part of the country.

 

[DarthAmerica]

I did not make any such assumptions. You have assumed that I did, through misreading of what I have written. Read back. I pointed out that satellite TV is widely available in Libya. It appears to be mostly unfiltered (i.e. direct from satellite, not through relays - look at any street view, & start counting dishes). That is not a claim that it is the primary source of news.

I did not assume that Libyans have seen the same reports I have, or understood them. Again, you have misread. Since I've been watching news in English, I expect few of them have seen & understood it in the original. What I did assume (& with good reason) is that a large number of Libyans have seen non-Libyan Arabic-language broadcasts. We know (as I reported) that Gaddafi has tried to jam Al Jazeera & some other Arabic broadcasts, which suggests he's worried that a lot of people are watching them, & has no other way of filtering satellite broadcasts. Since they are probably aware that state TV contains a lot of propaganda (much of it is very crude & amateurish, & rather obvious), he has good reason to worry.

I am surprised at the assumption you made that Gaddafi controls news access to the whole country, in an era of satellites, & when he has no control over a large part of the country.

First of all I'm not assuming anything. Second you've made the following assumptions:

-Libyans "shrugged off" the collateral

-Gaddafi is unpopular

-Gaddafi's control of information ends at the broadcast

And a host of other incorrect implied assertions.

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Swerve,

This is not a nation where information flows freely relatively speaking...

state controls broadcast media; state-owned terrestrial TV station and about a half-dozen state-owned satellite stations broadcast; some provinces operate local TV stations; a single, non-state-owned TV station launched in 2007; pan-Arab satellite TV stations are available; state-owned radio broadcasts on a number of frequencies, some of which carry regional programming; Voice of Africa, Libya's external radio service, can also be heard; a single, non-state-owned radio station broadcasting (2007)

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

Swampfox,

If the Libyans mass armor then they make themselves more vulnerable. The question is can the European forces strike it quickly, precisely and with enough mass to stop any offensive before it gets mixed in with the population. But why would Gaddafi do this and take the risk?

Instead he will likely stage his armor in areas that will continue to prevent target by air attack and continue to rely on captured civilian vehicles for transportation.



Former U.S. rep to visit Gadhafi as rebels lose ground in Libyan war - CNN.com

-DA

 

[swerve]

Swerve,

This is not a nation where information flows freely relatively speaking...

-DA

You're either hard of understanding, or trolling. Which is it?

Let me remind you of some rather obvious facts, all of which have already been drawn to your attention:
1. The state's writ does not run in almost half the country. None of the state-controlled media operate there.
2. From your own quote - " pan-Arab satellite TV stations are available". Any street view shows satellite dishes on just about every dwelling. They can't be filtered if they're direct feeds from personal dishes.
3. Radio does not respect borders. Libyans can listen to numerous Arabic-language foreign stations, including the BBC Arabic & Voice of America.
4. The government is sufficiently concerned about news received from foreign satellites that it's tried to jam them.
5. At least two rebel satellite TV channels are broadcasting.

 

[DarthAmerica]

You're either hard of understanding, or trolling. Which is it?

Let me remind you of some rather obvious facts, all of which have already been drawn to your attention:
1. The state's writ does not run in almost half the country. None of the state-controlled media operate there.
2. From your own quote - " pan-Arab satellite TV stations are available". Any street view shows satellite dishes on just about every dwelling. They can't be filtered if they're direct feeds from personal dishes.
3. Radio does not respect borders. Libyans can listen to numerous Arabic-language foreign stations, including the BBC Arabic & Voice of America.
4. The government is sufficiently concerned about news received from foreign satellites that it's tried to jam them.
5. At least two rebel satellite TV channels are broadcasting.

You haven't drawn my attention to anything except that you are obviously not informed about the influence and popular support for Gaddafi on the ground in Libya. Libya is not politically divided in half the way you think it is. You're obviously looking at the pretty little charts broadcast in western media. That's a mistake. The military/political map is much different. The programming on those pan Arab satellite broadcast aren't all anti government. Much of it is being jammed and as I keep telling you it is only ONE method of information. When you say the government is sufficiently concerned you make it seem as if this is new. Gaddafi is always "concerned" and routinely intervenes in and interferes with all forms of broadcast media and the Internet. None of that is new. With regard to rebel satellite channels, yes they are there and so what? I never said they weren't.

You are committed to lamenting over this satellite TV issue because you probably believe it gives credibility to your original unprovable and almost certainly false assertion that Libyans have "shrugged off" collateral damage. A statement that would get you admonished, censored and perhaps fired if you were in anyway conducting/managing the war effort in public. The fact is that your assertion was incomprehensible based on what we know of air campaigns and the effects on civilians. So if it makes you feel better to be right about the precise number of satellite broadcast so be it. Im not arguing that and could care less. You are absolutely wrong about Libyans shrugging off the deaths that resulted from coalition attacks.

In fact it amuses me to read people talking about this "no fly zone" with such conviction about it's effectiveness. One would think that Gaddafi's troops, tanks and artillery have no hope of survival and will be swept away by European bombs. Except that I told you that this was not the case and without ground troops the "rebels" are little more than armed mobs similar to a Mad Max movie who are hopelessly outgunned and lack the fundamental necessities for a coordinated resistance. What makes it worse is we have the history of previous NATO and coalition operations where politicians thought victory could be achieved via air power. For instance in Kosovo I remember the reports of how many tanks and SAMs were being destroyed only to find out that these reports were inaccurate.

Then we have the issue of time critical striking which is a key part of effective CAS which is really what NATO is trying to do. As I mentioned to Swampfox this is failing and last nights report from CNN points to exactly that.

Swerve I'm giving a professional assessment of a war and the reality on the ground. I'm not here to nit pick how many satellite channels you can get in Libya. If you think that's trolling then that's on you.


-DA

 

[jack412]

may I suggest you both conclude this politics in the forum and take it to the personal message system

 

[DarthAmerica]

may I suggest you both conclude this politics in the forum and take it to the personal message system

You cannot exclude the human terrain from the analysis. Especially in this part of the world. Failure to understand it is why western Militaries do so poorly in Africa, SWA, Asia and the ME.

-DA

 

[Feanor]

You cannot exclude the human terrain from the analysis. Especially in this part of the world. Failure to understand it is why western Militaries do so poorly in Africa, SWA, Asia and the ME.

-DA

To be fair, your debate has strayed very far from the original topic. I think it would be more appropriate to continue the discussion in off-topic. You're more then welcome to make a thread there and carry on the conversation.

 

[STURM]

You cannot exclude the human terrain from the analysis. Especially in this part of the world. Failure to understand it is why western Militaries do so poorly in Africa, SWA, Asia and the ME.-DA

Just one last thing to add before we get back to the main topic.

I understand the message or point DA is tryng to convoy. There is a vast difference in watching a report of civillians blown up on BBC and hearing a spokesman for the coalition saying ''the deaths are truly regretted'' or ''there will be an investigation'' and in civiliians actually experiencing it for real, and in many cases involving a friend or a relation. As a long time Middle East observer once said in an article, we know the name of every single foreign soldier who lost their lives in Afghanistan and Iraq, but can we name a single local who was killed?

 

[merocaine]

Much more of this and the locals won't be shrugging of friendly fire

Nato air strike 'kills Libyan rebels' | World news | The Guardian

 

[Sampanviking]

Well, The rebels have not "shrugged off" this one, they seem pretty furious about it.

One wonders if there is a pattern emerging about the precise rebels that keep getting hit at the moment?