No-fly zone over Libya

[Sampanviking]

What could they have offered Russia or India?

EDIT: It's interesting that Russian General HQ has said that the no-fly zone hasn't produced the necessary results, in the sense that it hasn't given the rebels enough of an advantage to turn the tide, and in the sense that it's come too late. There also are claims that Russian intelligence has uncovered plans for a land operation in Libya in April-May.

Lenta.ru:  ìèðå: Ãëàâà ðîññèéñêîãî Ãåíøòàáà ñ÷åë âîåííóþ îïåðàöèþ â Ëèâèè ïðîâàëüíîé

Sadly none of these world leaders conduct their negotiations by tweeting so it is impossible to follow them. The Saudi's have a range of tools in their kit box which starts with Oil itself and Investment Capitol via its sovereign funds. Beyond that you have preference, influence or none obstruction or simply "appreciating" each others core interests.

It will be very worth looking over the next few weeks or months for announcements of surprising and substantial agreements or progress over previously deadlocked projects.

 

[Feanor]

Well if your theory is correct then we should see re-activation of many Saudi-Russian defence contracts that were close to being signed, but are now essentially stuck. Interesting thought. That would be a way of compensating Russia for the ~4 billion USD in lost contracts with Libya.

 

[swerve]

One factor which is largely being ignored in these discussions is that this war is as much about morale as physical destruction. If one side thinks it's losing, it probably will.

The 'victories' of the rebels between Ajdabiya & Sirte have not been accompanied by any significant fighting. Gaddafi's forces have fled ahead of the rebel advance, leaving behind significant quantities of weaponry. Even at Ajdabiya, it seems that many of the tanks, artillery pieces & AFVs left behind were undamaged, but abandoned by their crews. Many of Gaddafi's soldiers seem to have deserted.

Any discussion of the relative strengths & effectiveness of the forces involved which fails to take this into account is unrealistic.

It's clear that the rebel forces can't stand up to Gaddafi's troops in open battle when the latter are able to deploy heavy weapons, but in some cases, all the rebels have to do is turn up in numbers with weapons to be welcomed by locals. "Control" in this sense is, as Kato says, rather a fluid concept.

Palnatoke: you're right that Gaddafi's power rests largely on clan alliances, but those alliances ultimately rely on him having the power & money of the state behind him. He buys, threatens & cajoles clans to support him. If he loses control of the flow of oil money or if his personally loyal troops are weakened, allied clans may reconsider their support for him. They're allies of convenience, not commitment. Most of them would happily feed him to sharks if they could.

 

[Sampanviking]

I think Swerve that many of the Govt troops no longer have that option. I think they did early on and that many sat on their hands in the early days until they saw which way the wind was blowing.

This is one of the reasons why I suspect that Gadaffi did initially negotiate his survival with the west and that many elements of the army came back into the fight at that point, which was when the rebel advance was put to rout. Its a hard trick to pull off twice though!

Gadaffi knows he cannot beat the coalition head on and so now is going to play the propaganda game. I think you will find that his forces have fallen back to friendly cities. Not only does this mean that the Coalition would have to now attack such forces in pro Gadaffi civilian areas, but that the rebels will now need to "attack" into them. Both activities will be at odds with the UN 1973 authorisation of "Protecting Civilians".
Russia seems already to have picked up this general theme and it will only get louder if the rebels "attack" or if the Coalition Air Strikes cause civilian casualties.

 

[Shock]

I think Swerve that many of the Govt troops no longer have that option. I think they did early on and that many sat on their hands in the early days until they saw which way the wind was blowing.

This is one of the reasons why I suspect that Gadaffi did initially negotiate his survival with the west and that many elements of the army came back into the fight at that point, which was when the rebel advance was put to rout. Its a hard trick to pull off twice though!

Gadaffi knows he cannot beat the coalition head on and so now is going to play the propaganda game. I think you will find that his forces have fallen back to friendly cities. Not only does this mean that the Coalition would have to now attack such forces in pro Gadaffi civilian areas, but that the rebels will now need to "attack" into them. Both activities will be at odds with the UN 1973 authorisation of "Protecting Civilians".
Russia seems already to have picked up this general theme and it will only get louder if the rebels "attack" or if the Coalition Air Strikes cause civilian casualties.

That would naturally be the case. Russia and China have a Win-neutral situation and they know it. If Gadaffi stays in power, they will be the first and more than likely, only ones who will have access to Libya's natural resources. If he is killed off, their position doesn't change much (if at all).

 

[Feanor]

News just came out that the rebels were essentially lying ("embellishing" if you prefer ) about capturing Sirte.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ëèâèéñêèå ìÿòåæíèêè ïîñïåøèëè îáúÿâèòü î çàõâàòå "ìàëîé ðîäèíû" Êàääàôè - èõ îòáèëè åùå íà ïîäñòóïàõ

Sirte is still in control of the military, with the rebels recently capturing Bin Djavad. Misurata is still being fought over.

 

[swerve]

Neither side has exactly excelled in the accuracy of its claims. State TV claimed to have captured Tobruk a couple of weeks ago. nfloorl:

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

I think Swerve that many of the Govt troops no longer have that option. I think they did early on and that many sat on their hands in the early days until they saw which way the wind was blowing.

This is one of the reasons why I suspect that Gadaffi did initially negotiate his survival with the west and that many elements of the army came back into the fight at that point, which was when the rebel advance was put to rout. Its a hard trick to pull off twice though!

That's rather spurious thinking. I wouldn't have put it beyond Gaddafi to try to weasel out of the mess he made for himself, and some countries did at first seem reluctant to take military action. But the UK and then France pushed for intervention, which would haven't had got anywhere if it had been left to anyone else.

It's not like Gaddafi used chemical weapons or did anything he hadn't been doing for weeks, such that his actions meant that NATO countries had to turn their back on him. The delay in taking action was mostly caused by political inertia.

 

[STURM]

That's rather spurious thinking. I wouldn't have put it beyond Gaddafi to try to weasel out of the mess he made for himself, and some countries did at first seem reluctant to take military action. But the UK and then France pushed for intervention, which would haven't had got anywhere if it had been left to anyone else.

The U.K and France are to all intents and purposes already on the active side of the rebels. Wonder how long it will be before the key words - 'regime change' come into the picture. Despite some lies or premature announcements by the rebels as to the captured towns, the strikes have clearly provided the rebels with a respite and have enabled them to advance in some areas. Whether this will lead to decisive results remains to be seen. The rebels are even talking about exporting oil!

No-fly zone: Clouding words of war - Opinion - Al Jazeera English

Robert Fisk: Remember the civilian victims of past 'Allied' bombing campaigns - Robert Fisk, Commentators - The Independent

 

[Grand Danois]

"Mission Update 28th March
Danish F-16 bombed ammunition dumps south of Tripoli.
28-03-2011 - kl. 15:00
Michael Langberg

Over the past day, the Danish F-16 contribution carried out two air-to-ground missions. In connection with the missions have been thrown precision guided bombs against ammunition depots south of Tripoli.

Altogether there are now conducted 30 missions, 29 of which have been air-to-ground and one air-to-air.

Since the missions began last Sunday, the Danish fighter jets dropped 65 precision guided bombs against targets in Libya. Goals include command centers, ammunition bunkers, ammunition depots, SCUD-launchers, tanks, rocket launchers and self-propelled artillery."

Mission Update 28. marts

Just saying, that's a helluva pounding from a mere 4+2 jets in a week! The RDAF is a small fraction of what's going on. The Gaddafi forces must have been very badly hit.

Norwegians began to bomb last Thursday, Belgian F-16s today. Dutch arriving tomorrow (that would be EPAF sans Portugal). The Swedes two weeks from now.

 

[Humming Drone]

Interesting. Just saw the news that the coalition (and more specifically, US) is using AC-130s and A-10s over Libya.

Which means that the anti-air threat is small and Gaddafi's air defenses are effectively destroyed (or suppressed). Which brings up the question if the no-fly zone is securely established, then ground attack planes might start really mauling Gaddafi's equipment.

How will it look if the coalition will start acting as the rebels' air force providing CAS for rebels trying to capture Gaddafi's controlled territory, and mainly cities? Gaddafi is still likely to hold significant loyalties in his hometown, for example, and assaulting the city with civilians in it must look funny in the light of UN mandate...

 

[STURM]

Obama has said that though the world would be better off without the 'Colonel', deposing him using military means would be a mistake. What he didn't say is that the citizens of quite a few countries in the region, would also be better off without their never elected rulers who are courted by the U.S. and the west for their own interests and real-politik. The President's statement is I believe intended mainly for France and the U.K. and sends further signals to signify the extent the U.S. is willing to go in Libya.

 

[Musashi_kenshin]

The U.K and France are to all intents and purposes already on the active side of the rebels. Wonder how long it will be before the key words - 'regime change' come into the picture.

"Regime change" doesn't have to be mentioned. Gaddafi can't stay. Or do you really think he'll play nice if the fighting stops?

 

[Feanor]

"Regime change" doesn't have to be mentioned. Gaddafi can't stay. Or do you really think he'll play nice if the fighting stops?

The real question is, if Gaddafi starts rolling the rebels back again, will the coalition commit ground troops? In fact at this point that's the only question worth asking.

If he doesn't start rolling back the rebels, he's done for. If the coalition commits ground troops he's done for. But if the coalitions commitment wavers, and he manages to break the stalemate, it will be up for grabs whether he stays or not.

 

[Palnatoke]

Palnatoke: you're right that Gaddafi's power rests largely on clan alliances, but those alliances ultimately rely on him having the power & money of the state behind him. He buys, threatens & cajoles clans to support him. If he loses control of the flow of oil money or if his personally loyal troops are weakened, allied clans may reconsider their support for him. They're allies of convenience, not commitment. Most of them would happily feed him to sharks if they could.

I think you are absolutely right about that.
Though my worry is that the clan structures behind him, or those structures that "enables" him, are not matters of convinience,
and if the "uprising" against the state or Ghadafi is transformed into a true "civil war" between clans (not clans surporting Ghadafi or not, but Clans fighting for themselves) then we have a civil war that can go on for ever (like Shiites/sunnis in Iraq, pashtun against the others in Afgh. etc)

But recent events seems to suggest that it won't happen, my guess (right now ) is that this will stay as an succesfull uprising against the state, the rebels also seems to have quite a few old Ghadafi loyalists amoung it's leaders, Maybe Ghadafi is isolated and no longer enjoys surport from any signficant civilian structure?

 

[STURM]

"Regime change" doesn't have to be mentioned. Gaddafi can't stay. Or do you really think he'll play nice if the fighting stops?

He'll do what he has to, to stay in power, that's for sure. 'Regime Change' has not been mentioned yet but that can change. Despite all the talk about intervening for ''humanitarian reasons'', ''to save civillians'', etc, plus all the stuff they haven't said, I really can't see France and the U.K. agreeing to Gaddafi hanging on, not after all the diplomatic and military effort they have put in, not to mention the huge financial outlay.

Besides, the folks at Dassault and Nexter need customers for the Rafale and the Lerclerc and I'm sure the leadership of a post-Gadaffi government will be too happy to oblige, to show their gratitude . At the rate things are progressing, I'll be very surprise if we don't see 2nd Para and the Legion Etrangere in the deserts and cities of Libya as part of a ground intervention, to ''safeguard civilians'' from military attacks and to provide ''humanitarian aid''............

 

[B3LA]

A little afterthough...

France was very fast to throw in their Rafales, was it just to prove their effectives for their ongoing sales?
A wide consensus was quickly achieved in Sweden to send six Gripen fighters, was that only to make it "battle proven" for future customers ?
The risks for the pilots are moderate/low, the action is approved by UN, so let out the flyboys to play in the sandbox !
Get some valuable practice with live ammo and moving targets...well...they move for a while anyway...
If UN could approve this, why not call for airstrikes on North Korea (and China) too, they kill their own people as well...

 

[STURM]

If UN could approve this, why not call for airstrikes on North Korea (and China) too, they kill their own people as well...

Ah..... but the big major difference is N. Korea and China has nukes. Plus, going after China would have a bad effect on the global economy. This is precisely the reason Iran wants nukes, not to threaten Israel or the West, as is often mentioned by the mainstream press, the neo-conservatives and the pro-Israel lobby in the U.S. but to ensure regime survival.

 

[Palnatoke]

If UN could approve this, why not call for airstrikes on North Korea (and China) too, they kill their own people as well...

They got nukes... You can only gangbang people that don't got nukes and whos economical ruin doesn't affect world stock prices too much.


EDIT: (Sorry, STURM beat me)

 

[swerve]

If UN could approve this, why not call for airstrikes on North Korea (and China) too, they kill their own people as well...

Already addressed, more than once. You do what you can. Libya presented a rare opportunity. There was a rebellion in progress, which had thrown the government out of a large part of the country. An intervention would therefore not start a war, & thus make the populace worse off. China is too powerful to attack, & an attack would not be supported by any of its people. Attacking N. Korea would start an immensely bloody & costly war.

How many more reasons do you want?