No-fly zone over Libya

[DarthAmerica]

Now I feel like one of the talking heads on TV! God I hate saying it. Also hate to say I told you so but...


NATO admits deadly airstrike but blames Libyan rebels | McClatchy

...Read my comments all along about this "no fly zone". Everything has transpired as I foretold. And now it doesn't matter who your satellite TV provider is because whether is Libyan propaganda or "Pan Arab" signals being beamed in to "every dish" the message is the slowness of coalition response, in accuracy/ineptitude of coalition bombing, collateral(including exploding tanks) caused by the same and it's all being spread word of mouth and rebroadcast/tweeted ect.

I wonder if people still feel that I was "off topic". It seems my characterization of this no fly zone was quite accurate....

-DA

 

[STURM]

And it appears that the political concerns and effectiveness of the no fly zone [given the circumstances on the ground], that some of us expressed in the first few pages of this thread has come true. Now that the situation has developed into a stalemate, at least for now, what comes next?

 

[Feanor]

Pro Gaddafi forces are assaulting Adzhabiya. The rebels say they will not give the city, because it's the gate to Benghazi.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ñèëû Êàääàôè íà÷àëè ìàñøòàáíîå íàñòóïëåíèå íà Àäæäàáèþ

 

[DarthAmerica]

Pro Gaddafi forces are assaulting Adzhabiya. The rebels say they will not give the city, because it's the gate to Benghazi.

Íîâîñòè NEWSru.com :: Ñèëû Êàääàôè íà÷àëè ìàñøòàáíîå íàñòóïëåíèå íà Àäæäàáèþ

If they lose that city then they are in huge trouble. I hope that this is making clear the limitations of air power. All the talk of No Fly Zones and Brimstones and wildly optimistic shrugging off of things like sortie rates, collateral damage, time on target and impact of political considerations all once again becoming clear. From here there are generally three likely moves to follow.

1. Increase the intensity of the aerial bombardment and possibly US involvement to offset Gaddafi progress.

2. Abandon the rebels to their fate and seek political accommodation with Gaddafi

3. Overt Ground Campaign under the guise of Humanitarian assistance/peacekeeping but with the real objective of providing a safe zone and strategic depth for the rebels to consolidate and reorganize for future more effective offensive operations when the time is right. This could potentially involve basing CAS and attack helos on Libyan soil to increase loiter time and precision. This would require even more "security" for the air assets but would in reality be invasion and occupation.

Either way tough times ahead...

-DA

 

[stoker]

Nato seems to have forgotten one of the basic fundamentals of warfare.

Yes, airpower can dominate the battle field, but if you want to win the War you have to put 'troops' on the land.

Airpower can not hold territory, only soldiers can.

 

[Raven22]

Airpower can not hold territory, only soldiers can.

Which is conveniently why there is a rebel army on the ground. NATO isn't trying to hold territory, they are just supporting the rebel soldiers doing so. The last few times NATO nations got involved on the ground in the Mediterranean/Middle East didn't work out so well after all.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Which is conveniently why there is a rebel army on the ground. NATO isn't trying to hold territory, they are just supporting the rebel soldiers doing so. The last few times NATO nations got involved on the ground in the Mediterranean/Middle East didn't work out so well after all.

There is no rebel "army". At best they are barely what I consider guerillas and more often than not an armed mob. That's why they can't take and hold terrain the way a real army does. It's why they can't take advantage of the NATO air attacks.

When a real army like the one that went in to OIF/OEF does the job then the result is obviously going to be different. In both cases the results were Saddam removed, Iraq subdued and held in spite of the insurgents and proxy war and AQ/Taliban forces to seek sanctuary in Pakistan. The rebels in Libya can't do that.

Trying to prop these rebels up and pretending that if we just add air power then the result is achievable is a bad assumption. I'm not entirely sure if various western intelligence agencies didnt screw up the analysis and over estimate the rebels capability. Clearly the UNSCR 1973 was written in such a way as to allow for far more flexibility than "no fly zone" and in fact the coalition has been far beyond that since day one.

The key to the puzzle for me is to determine the true objective here. IT AIN'T protecting Libyan citizens for sure! It's entirely possible though that there is no one "objective" and what we are dealing with here is a tower of babel. If so then this is bad...


-DA

 

[Feanor]

I seriously doubt there is a single political objective.

EDIT: Stubborn fighting continues for Adzhabiya. Over two dozen of Gaddafi tanks assaulted the city, at least 17 were destroyed by NATO air strikes. Artillery continues to fire into the city. The western edge of the city has been penetrated by Gaddafi's forces, the rest of the city remains under rebel control.

http://newsru.com/world/10apr2011/ad.html

 

[Ananda]

If they lose that city then they are in huge trouble. I hope that this is making clear the limitations of air power. All the talk of No Fly Zones and Brimstones and wildly optimistic shrugging off of things like sortie rates, collateral damage, time on target and impact of political considerations all once again becoming clear. From here there are generally three likely moves to follow.

1. Increase the intensity of the aerial bombardment and possibly US involvement to offset Gaddafi progress.

2. Abandon the rebels to their fate and seek political accommodation with Gaddafi

3. Overt Ground Campaign under the guise of Humanitarian assistance/peacekeeping but with the real objective of providing a safe zone and strategic depth for the rebels to consolidate and reorganize for future more effective offensive operations when the time is right. This could potentially involve basing CAS and attack helos on Libyan soil to increase loiter time and precision. This would require even more "security" for the air assets but would in reality be invasion and occupation.

Either way tough times ahead...

-DA

Option one: Do US still have enough spares for Libyan air and ground offensif considering what they are committing elsewhere especially in Afghan ?

Option two: if they let the rebels come to tragic end, where Nato's face will be put later on in middle east and africa ?

Option there: How big ground forces you're suggesting will be. Base on previous experiences you'll need at least 20,000 ground forces for safe keeping the rebels possitions and perjaps double than that to throw Khadafi's army completely. This come to the first question that I put in this thread: 'how big the appetite of the west to commit ground offensive ?'

will the west still have the stomach looking their sons and daugthers falling in the long protrected ground offensive ?

Again like I said in the early pages in this thread, the west should give face for khadafi's step down whille push the rebels to share power with what's left of khadafi's factions.

 

[Raven22]

While it is not going to happen, the US has more than enough resources to defeat Gaddafi on the ground. A single USMC MEU would have more than enough combat power to defeat his rabble with the amount of air support available. A single US brigade took Baghdad afterall.

 

[STURM]

A single USMC MEU would have more than enough combat power to defeat his rabble with the amount of air support available.

Very true. But what happens after that? Like in Iraq and Afghanistan, military power alone wont solve the political, social and economical aspects.

 

[Raven22]

Very true. But what happens after that? Like in Iraq and Afghanistan, military power alone wont solve the political, social and economical aspects.

Of course. Hence why no one is talking about putting forces on the ground. The US learned their lesson twice last decade.

 

[Feanor]

Of course. Hence why no one is talking about putting forces on the ground. The US learned their lesson twice last decade.

I don't think they did. Or rather it's not the right lesson. The mess in Libya is hardly better at this point. The only difference is that since none of the coalition members have ground troops, it's a lot easier to pack up and leave at an arbitrary date (once the costs outweigh the perceived benefits) and just dump the mess on the locals.

The right lesson would have been to not get involved to begin with. Let them sort out their own problems, and then negotiate with the winner.

 

[DarthAmerica]

Of course. Hence why no one is talking about putting forces on the ground. The US learned their lesson twice last decade.

Okay a couple points here. No MEU has the capability to do this alone. A MEU could move in and secure infrastructure to allow for follow on forces however. And let's be clear that we are talking about 10's of thousands of troops at a minimum.

The lesson we learned on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is that you've got to endure long enough for a sustainable political solution to take affect. Best case is months and much more likely is years. That's well beyond what a MEU is task organized for. Moreover, this is urban combat. A force of 2000+ Marines in what may be a hostile population is bad. We need the US Army and there lies the problem...

Libya is in a civil war. The outcome of which does not threaten critical US interest. Not enough to further strain the Army which must be reoriented back against Russia. Let's not forget that elections are coming soon and the US President must consider that in his calculus.

Gaddafi knows all of this and is not as crazy as western media suggest. While there's risk, he knows that all he need do is:

-Endure the "no fly zone"

-Maintain control of the Army

-Purge his cabinet

The military requirement goes far beyond a MEU or no fly zone...

-DA

 

[DarthAmerica]

I don't think they did. Or rather it's not the right lesson. The mess in Libya is hardly better at this point. The only difference is that since none of the coalition members have ground troops, it's a lot easier to pack up and leave at an arbitrary date (once the costs outweigh the perceived benefits) and just dump the mess on the locals.

The right lesson would have been to not get involved to begin with. Let them sort out their own problems, and then negotiate with the winner.

This is why I think there's more to it than meets the eye. The military contribution does not align with the stated or implied goals. I'm beginning to suspect the real "fight" is within European borders and Libya merely represents a more convenient place to carry it out...

-DA

 

[Vivendi]

I'm beginning to suspect the real "fight" is within European borders and Libya merely represents a more convenient place to carry it out...

Could you elaborate?

 

[STURM]

Gaddafi knows all of this and is not as crazy as western media suggest. -DA

Yes he's a survivor who in the past few decades has come full circle, just like Assad and Saddam. Despite being routed in Tanzania and Chad, border clashes with Egypt, the trashing he received in the Gulf of Sidra in the 80's, and numerous assassination attempts, he managed to stay in power. It's hard to believe that just 14 months ago, various companies were exhibiting at LAVEX for contracts to revitalise the Libyan Air Force. Dassault even started work on upgrading a batch of F-1's.

 

[Raven22]

The lesson we learned on the ground in Iraq and Afghanistan is that you've got to endure long enough for a sustainable political solution to take affect. Best case is months and much more likely is years. That's well beyond what a MEU is task organized for. Moreover, this is urban combat. A force of 2000+ Marines in what may be a hostile population is bad. We need the US Army and there lies the problem...

The comment I was replying to was what was required to defeat Gaddafi's Army. An MEU would be able to do that. Obviously if you want to fight a counter-insurgency war into the bargain, then you are going to need more.

 

[DarthAmerica]

The comment I was replying to was what was required to defeat Gaddafi's Army. An MEU would be able to do that. Obviously if you want to fight a counter-insurgency war into the bargain, then you are going to need more.

No, it would not be enough. Sorry...

-DA

 

[Swampfox157]

This is why I think there's more to it than meets the eye. The military contribution does not align with the stated or implied goals. I'm beginning to suspect the real "fight" is within European borders and Libya merely represents a more convenient place to carry it out...

-DA

This...this is an interesting thought. As Vivendi asked, could you please elaborate on it? I agree, UN1973 appears to call for nothing NEAR the current action. The whole thing is a little odd.