No Fly Zone for Libya?

**Double Edge** · 15 Mar 11,, 23:32

Originally Posted by rj1

I tell you, the U.S. pulls out and leaves these countries to their own devices and see what happens, the Saudis and Iranians are having a proxy war in Bahrain and the Egyptians have sent troops across the border to help overthrow its neighbor's government when the side they're supporting is losing (so if Gaddafi wins, is he going to attack Egypt in response?).

(tongue partly in cheek)

The bolded bit got my attention, what's your basis ?

**citanon** · 16 Mar 11,, 07:13

Originally Posted by troung

Or maybe we should stop the Saudis.

A red herring. Its not in our interest to stop the Saudis, and it does not appear that the Bahraini unrest is a democratic revolution.

Shouldn't be our problem.

Should or shouldn't is irrelevant.

I think it is clear the rebel leadership couldn't manage a circle jerk. Unless we are prepared to invade Libya, defeat Querdaffi, and put the country in the hands of people one or two rungs down from the top in the last regime; we should stay home.

Libya's Civil War: Will Gaddafi Press On to Benghazi? - TIME

latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-rebels-20110313,0,2651426.story

Your references show that the rebels have no military leadership, which is obvious. What's also clear is that they have fairly good ability to run the cities and government services. What we have here is a situation where the civilian leadership can form a competent government but the "military" is utterly incompetent and self serving. This is a very different situation than Afghanistan, where you had warlords, and Iraq, where everyone was utterly corrupt.

I think this is actually a good sign. If we help the rebels prevail militarily, they are in a good position to form a strong and competent civilian government with a subordinant military. This is the outcome that we want. What we don't want is for the civilian leadership to get eliminated, and then end up supporting one of these not quite Colonels as an ineffectual strongman, aka Qadhaffi the Weaker.

**rj1** · 16 Mar 11,, 13:40

Originally Posted by Double Edge

The bolded bit got my attention, what's your basis ?

It'd been reported previously (say last week), I think by Stratfor. I'll post a link when I find it.

citanon: Your references show that the rebels have no military leadership, which is obvious. What's also clear is that they have fairly good ability to run the cities and government services. What we have here is a situation where the civilian leadership can form a competent government but the "military" is utterly incompetent and self serving.

If we help the rebels prevail militarily, they are in a good position to form a strong and competent civilian government with a subordinant military.

Where the hell do you see all this? Are you watching the same place I am?

**rj1** · 16 Mar 11,, 14:17

Double Edge,

This isn't the article I remember reading about it, but it's probably been cited in multiple ones. But here you are.

February 28th from Stratfor:

Free Article for Non-Members | STRATFOR

An immense logistical challenge thus lies ahead for this group of Libyan rebels trying to move into Gadhafi’s western stronghold in and around Tripoli, especially as Gadhafi appears to have retained significant air force support both to keep the rebels at bay and to destroy their arms depots from the air. The Libyan opposition does not appear to be alone, however. According to STRATFOR sources, Egyptian army and special operations forces units have played a key role in quietly providing weaponry and training to Libyan opposition forces while trying to organize a political command in the east. One well-placed source, whose information could not be verified, claimed that the Tunisian army is allowing armed volunteer fighters, along with Egyptian special operations forces, to enter Libya from the west through the Tunisian border, which lies closer to Tripoli than Benghazi and is a location to which a number of Libyan refugees have already fled. This reported influx of fighters would presumably be used to flank Gadhafi’s forces from the west while other opposition forces move in from the east for a potential battle over Tripoli.

Read more: Egypt's Stake in the Libyan Unrest | STRATFOR

**troung** · 16 Mar 11,, 15:52

citanon: Your references show that the rebels have no military leadership, which is obvious. What's also clear is that they have fairly good ability to run the cities and government services. What we have here is a situation where the civilian leadership can form a competent government but the "military" is utterly incompetent and self serving.

Where has highly politicized top officers who are more interested in personal advancement then defending a cause been a good thing? They have "colonels" it seems they are more interested in jockeying for power then bothering to run an army, and a civilian "leadership" drawn in no small part from people who served Querrdafy for decades.

A red herring. Its not in our interest to stop the Saudis, and it does not appear that the Bahraini unrest is a democratic revolution.

The people who voted in support for a no fly zone are using Libya as a cover to gun down Shia. Let them handle Libya.

Meanwhile in the Ivory Coast...

====================
Clinton: No U.S. support for Libya no-fly zone
First Read - Clinton: No U.S. support for Libya no-fly zone
From Cairo, NBC's Andrea Mitchell reports on the ongoing negotiations over a no-fly zone in Libya.

Carrie Dann writes:We wrote this morning that lawmakers – and the public – are split about whether the United States should implement a no-fly zone in Libya to assist rebels against Moammar Gaddafi.

Now, NBC’s Andrea Mitchell reports from Cairo that there is “no U.S. support” from the State Department for a no-fly zone over Libya, with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton instead saying that the proposal must go to the United Nations, where it is expected to face opposition from Russia and China.

Meeting with Clinton last night in Paris, Libyan rebels asked the Secretary to launch airstrikes against three airfields, to offer military aid, and to implement a no fly-zone, Mitchell reports.

But the United States is not going to meet those demands, according to an off-camera read out after that meeting -- the highest-level contact to date between the administration and the Libyan rebels.

NATO is expected to discuss options for intervention today.

NBC's Michelle Perry contributed.

**T_igger_cs_30** · 16 Mar 11,, 16:00

The people who voted in support for a no fly zone are using Libya as a cover to gun down Shia. Let them handle Libya

If that was not such a sad comment, it would be laughable.

**citanon** · 16 Mar 11,, 18:12

Originally Posted by rj1

Where the hell do you see all this? Are you watching the same place I am?

It's hard to see it now amid all the articles about the war. You have to read between the lines.

MinnPost - Benghazi brings order to its revolution

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/359676

3 weeks since a city of 1 million people expereienced a total collapse of government and we hear nothing regarding a brewing humanitarian disaster. There's no looting on the streets despite the army distributing weapons to the citizenry. Foreign governments are able to bringing large quantities of petroleum to a functioning port without fearing that it would be robbed. The petroleum delivered is apparently put to good use. You have functioning garbage collection, power supply, waste treatment and medical facilities (otherwise we'd start seeing the outbreak of disease). People felt safe enough to donate their money, food and supplies (instead of hoarding). When the arm depot explosion occured there was a large self-organized rescue effort. When the SAS team was detained, they weren't fought over by rival groups, they weren't moved around, they were treated well, allowed to contact the UK government and were released.

I'd say they are organized pretty well for civil governance considering the circumstances. Now they might also be starting to getting their shit together militarily:

Rebels claim to have destroyed two Gaddafi warships - Monsters and Critics

**citanon** · 16 Mar 11,, 18:21

Originally Posted by citanon

It's hard to see it now amid all the articles about the war. You have to read between the lines.

MinnPost - Benghazi brings order to its revolution

http://www.almasryalyoum.com/en/node/359676

3 weeks since a city of 1 million people expereienced a total collapse of government and we hear nothing regarding a brewing humanitarian disaster. There's no looting on the streets despite the army distributing weapons to the citizenry. Foreign governments are able to bringing large quantities of petroleum to a functioning port without fearing that it would be robbed. The petroleum delivered is apparently put to good use. You have functioning garbage collection, power supply, waste treatment and medical facilities (otherwise we'd start seeing the outbreak of disease). People felt safe enough to donate their money, food and supplies (instead of hoarding). When the arm depot explosion occured there was a large self-organized rescue effort. When the SAS team was detained, they weren't fought over by rival groups, they weren't moved around, they were treated well, allowed to contact the UK government and were released.

I'd say they are organized pretty well for civil governance considering the circumstances. Now they might also be starting to getting their shit together militarily:

Rebels claim to have destroyed two Gaddafi warships - Monsters and Critics

BBC news footage of Benghazi today or yesterday:

BBC News - Gaddafi forces launch assault on rebel held Misrata

I'd say THAT = well governed.

**Double Edge** · 16 Mar 11,, 18:33

Originally Posted by rj1

Double Edge,

This isn't the article I remember reading about it, but it's probably been cited in multiple ones. But here you are.

February 28th from Stratfor:

Free Article for Non-Members | STRATFOR

How dependable do you find stratfor ?

I notice their releases tend to be cranked up a notch or two above the rest. All i see about this are requests that Egypt do what stratfor says they are already doing.

This would be a major development if true. Would be all over the media.

Strategy page has an entry for it on March 6. No source mentioned maybe it comes from stratfor as well.

Egypt quietly invades Libya-Strategy Page

And another that is advocating in favour of, in a japanese paper.

The Libyan revolution's best hope? Egypt-The Japan Times

**Skywatcher** · 16 Mar 11,, 19:09

As I understand it, reporters with access to info and sources about such operations are a small group, and may have agreed to their sources' requests to not run the stories for a while.

Though it would be interesting if Colonel Daffy Duck has a sudden panic attack and starts bombing Egyptian bases.

**rj1** · 16 Mar 11,, 19:15

Originally Posted by citanon

3 weeks since a city of 1 million people expereienced a total collapse of government and we hear nothing regarding a brewing humanitarian disaster. There's no looting on the streets despite the army distributing weapons to the citizenry. Foreign governments are able to bringing large quantities of petroleum to a functioning port without fearing that it would be robbed. The petroleum delivered is apparently put to good use. You have functioning garbage collection, power supply, waste treatment and medical facilities (otherwise we'd start seeing the outbreak of disease). People felt safe enough to donate their money, food and supplies (instead of hoarding). When the arm depot explosion occured there was a large self-organized rescue effort. When the SAS team was detained, they weren't fought over by rival groups, they weren't moved around, they were treated well, allowed to contact the UK government and were released.

That's because the civic leadership never changed or experienced hardship, they all went over to the other side, so life continued as normal. The Transitional National Council on the other hand have little to deal with the Benghazi Civic Power Structure, because the structure of the latter predated the former. This is no different than a month after South Carolina seceded from the Union in 1860 to use your own words, their towns had no looting, their ports still were active, the medical facilities still operated, but it didn't make the Confederacy a well-ran government. (I'm sorry if people hate my Confederate analogy, but the Libyan rebels and the Confederates are in effect the same thing when you see how both sides came to power over what ground they held in their initial formations).

The Benghazi council for example that is claiming to be running the rebellion has little communication with other rebel cities in the country if you read an article troung linked to in another thread. (Misrata: after pointing out like you have how the city is operating fine):

"We feel like we only have each other to count on," said Ahmad, a member of the city militia. "We have no contact from [the transitional national council in] Benghazi. We have taken matters into our own hands."

So the transitional council isn't really running the part of the country they say they have, life Karzai who in Afghanistan was sometimes referred to as "Mayor of Kabul" as NATO tried to centralize control of the outer country, the transitional council has little real power over what they're claiming they're doing, and what ground they did hold was with a soft presence in Ras Lanuf and other cities that was easily overwhelmed once they got pushed back on. Those "colonels" are nothing more than guys that want scraps once the battle is won, which is the worst kind of politician to have because they want all the credit with none of the legwork.

I'd say they are organized pretty well for civil governance considering the circumstances. Now they might also be starting to getting their shit together militarily

The same people that sent volunteers for the cause to the front lines and the only weapon they were supplied with was one grenade, were able to orchestrate an air strike to sink naval warships? If I had to place a bet I'd say Egyptian, which I actually view somewhat as a positive because it shows an Arab buy-in if our country decides to help this out.

Leaving that aside, think about this from a military perspective assuming the Libyan rebels were actually the ones doing it, those naval warships are not what is mainly defeating the Libyan rebels to begin with, it's artillery on the ground; so if the Libyans were in fact the ones in charge of those sorties, why did they go take out navy ships instead of going out to destroy the artillery that's presently killing their volunteers?

**Triple C** · 16 Mar 11,, 19:17

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

As I understand it, reporters with access to info and sources about such operations are a small group, and may have agreed to their sources' requests to not run the stories for a while.

Though it would be interesting if Colonel Daffy Duck has a sudden panic attack and starts bombing Egyptian bases.

You mean starts trying to bomb Egyptian bases.

**rj1** · 16 Mar 11,, 19:27

Reading up my defense blogs at the moment, one take on the Obama administration's lack of enthusiasm on Libya:

Maybe stability trumps democracy after all (SWJ Blog)

In my Foreign Policy column last Friday, I surmised,

Obama undoubtedly knows that he will face intense criticism if he stands by while Qaddafi ruthlessly crushes the rebellion. Knowing this, we must presume that outcome, assuming Obama allows it to occur, is part of a larger calculation of risks. What might those calculations be? Topping the list might be that Obama and his advisors have decided that they want to encourage no more rebellions in the Arab world, particularly in Saudi Arabia or elsewhere on the Sunni side of the Persian Gulf.

Events over the past four days have only reinforced that impression. The Obama administration backed the protesters in Egypt’s Tahrir Square and openly pressed for Hosni Mubarak’s resignation. That seemed like wise strategy at the time; the protesters weren’t going away, the Egyptian army was not going to permit a violent repression of the revolt, and thus the United States government had to get on the right side of history.

But that was then. It seems clear now that the Obama team has had enough of that kind of excitement, especially with the situation in Bahrain seemingly getting worse every day. Veterans of the Carter administration no doubt get a burning sensation in their stomachs when they recall what happened to a U.S. ally on the eastern side of the Persian Gulf during the last two years of their one and only term in office. Today’s White House staffers must shudder to think of history repeating itself on the western side of the Gulf.

As I mentioned last Friday, this may be the first among many reasons why the Obama team is in no mood to help the Libyan rebels. If the United States helped Libya’s rebels, other protesters in the Arab world might get an impression that the Obama team does not want them to entertain.

Even if the Obama administration was otherwise inclined, Libya’s rebels now seem like a weak horse on which to wager. Qaddafi’s troops, led by his son’s 32nd Brigade, are advancing up the coast road at a rate of up to 100 kilometers a day. Having today swept through Ajdabiya without much resistance, there are no obstacles remaining until Benghazi, which the loyalists could reach on Thursday. The rebels might attempt an urban insurgency strategy. If so, we might then see whether Qaddafi’s approach to counterinsurgency fares better than FM 3-24.

Meanwhile in Bahrain, a place that might qualify as a vital U.S. interest, a 2,000 man Saudi-UAE intervention force rolled into Manama – now under a three-month state of emergency - without any official comment from either the State Department or the White House. It must not have been a pleasant decision for Saudi officials to make. They know that this action could invite the very thing they are attempting to avoid, an excuse for Iran to incite Shiite mobilization in Bahrain and eastern Saudi Arabia. With protests in Bahrain getting worse by the day, these officials must have concluded that Shiite radicalization, whether incited by Iran or not, was already occurring and had to be confronted at an early stage.

Iran’s nuclear and missile programs were catalyzing an eventual confrontation between Iran and the GCC countries. The civil breakdown in Bahrain has sped up that reaction. No one doubts that the U.S. has vital interests in the Persian Gulf and will have to respond to threats to those interests. Might 2011 resemble 1979? Not a pleasant thought for anyone, least of all those in the White House who, fairly or not, will be held responsible for events.

**Skywatcher** · 16 Mar 11,, 20:22

Originally Posted by rj1

Leaving that aside, think about this from a military perspective assuming the Libyan rebels were actually the ones doing it, those naval warships are not what is mainly defeating the Libyan rebels to begin with, it's artillery on the ground; so if the Libyans were in fact the ones in charge of those sorties, why did they go take out navy ships instead of going out to destroy the artillery that's presently killing their volunteers?

A warship would a far easier target to find than scattered artillery batteries.

**rj1** · 16 Mar 11,, 21:00

Originally Posted by Skywatcher

A warship would a far easier target to find than scattered artillery batteries.

Easier, but relevant to the conflict?

Thread: No Fly Zone for Libya?

LinkBack

Thread Tools

Rate This Thread

Display

troung - response

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

Similar Threads

Demining the surf zone

UK supports Darfur no-fly zone

Time Zone clocks

War Zone Smackdown

Giant goat survives war zone

Share this thread with friends:

Share this thread with friends:

Posting Permissions