No Fly Zone for Libya?

[kato]

And land based? Too far.

Malta is less than 200 nm from Tripolis. We'd just need to dump those two dozen military transports operating from there right now to get some space to house tankers and a decent CAP for a refuelling point somewhere south of Lampedusa. Or NATO could just stage out of some of the German- and French-owned airfields south of Bengasi, such as Al-Nafoura.

The Kearsarge amphibious ready group, with about 800 marines

The Kearsarge and Ponce only carry 400 ground troops right now (supposedly - other sources say 300). The other 400 marines are aircrew. Most marines from 26th MEU were deployed to AFG in January. Considering 173rd ABCT and 2SCR are also in AFG, the ground unit composition within EUCOM is rather thin right now.

[rj1]

1. Considering the poor reputation of the U.S. currently in the Arab world, from a PR point of view, it's not really smart for the American air force to be enforcing a no-fly zone. Someone not as involved in "war mongering" according to the Arab world, say the EU, would make far more sense. Not to mention the EU is right across the Mediterranean.

2. Our equipment and military personnel is torn up from Iraq and Afghanistan and needs time to be rebuilt, not further missions, and we're still in Afghanistan on a combat stance.

3. All this said, I still expect the UN to call on us as other major powers around the world are either incapable, unwilling, or both.

4. In light of point 1, it's politically dumb of the Libyan dissident military officers to ask for our help because it removes more of the chance of them receiving any legitimacy from the Libyan public once the conflict is over if they only overthrew Gaddafi off our backsides.

5. I also debate the soundness in logic, even if Gaddafi is a bad guy and it'd be best for us if he were gone, of entangling ourselves in what at this point is de facto a Libyan civil war. Once we help break something, we have to help fix it as occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there's zero clue out there on who is going to be leading Libya once Gaddafi is gone or whether Libya would even exist in its current form, and it'd be best for our PR image in the Arab world if we don't play kingmaker again.

6. The Arab League passed a resolution today saying for foreign powers to stay out, so even though their opinion isn't worth much to the powers and a lot of them are only interested in self-preservation, they're officially against it. That said, the new military government in Egypt are according to Stratfor providing some arms to the opposition forces in eastern Libya.

[citanon]

We should not only consider a no fly-zone, we should consider sending in special forces to coordinate air strikes if there is firm support for that amongst the rebels.

Here is a people casting of the shackles of one of the most despotic regimes in the Middle East, young men who do not even know how to use a gun fighting against murderers and mercenaries using anti-aircraft guns to mow down unarmed civilians. One of the clearest examples of good battling against evil in modern history and we are sitting on the sidelines, wringing our hands.

This is moronic. Are we on the side of democracy or not? Are we a force for justice and freedom, or, are we, as the Arab world has long suspected, a a self serving nation supporting despots for the expediency of our own greed?

Imagine what would happen if the Libyan civil war descends into a long stalemate, or worse, if Ghadafi begins to win back territory against the rebels. Who then, would the rebels turn to for training, coordination and support? Would we be forced to land troops anyways after the rebellion has lost momentum, or worse, would the rebels turn to more extreme elements like Al Qaeda?

Libya has importance beyond its geopolitical footprint. Clearly, the enthusiasm and demand for democratic governance in the Arab world is much stronger than we had previously believed, and these successive revolutions may have become a turning point in our battle against extremist Islamic ideology. Thus this will be watched in the Arab world as a watershed moment, in which our true disposition is revealed. If we come out firmly on the side of democracy and freedom, despite difficulties and risks, then we may be able to turn the tide once and for all against extremist Islam. If we stand by passively, then the forces of democracy will run into far stronger headwinds in Libya, Egypt, Tunisia, and elsewhere, and we will risk losing an entire generation of people in the Middle East to disillusionment. Ultimately, this may strengthen terrorist and extremists movements in the entire region and render hollow any and all of our prouncements regarding democracy, freedom and human rights.

[joshduck541]

From an American point of view, I doubt the public has the heart to support entering yet another Arab country to promote democracy. So far we're 0 for 2, depending on who you're asking, so why make the same mistake thrice?

More importantly, a no-fly zone requires far more than a couple of planes patrolling a stretch of sky. There's the fact that targeted strikes would be needed to disable any air-defense networks, not to mention the huge number of logistical assets that would need to be diverted to fuel, arm, and maintain said planes. Its too heavy of a burden for either the U.S, or NATO to undertake, given their current state.

I would however support the deployment of U.S Special Forces. Events like this are the reason they were activated in the first place. It would also give us a smaller footprint on the ground there. The Libyan people have the momentum on their side now, they just need that extra little nudge of a 'force multiplier' or two :)

[gf0012-aust]

Ahhh..has anybody looked and seen where our carriers are?

Enterprise is just east of Suez and there is an ESG with 2000 marines on board nearby

The Arab League is also now talking about establishing a NFZ....

[Dago]

1. Considering the poor reputation of the U.S. currently in the Arab world, from a PR point of view, it's not really smart for the American air force to be enforcing a no-fly zone. Someone not as involved in "war mongering" according to the Arab world, say the EU, would make far more sense. Not to mention the EU is right across the Mediterranean.

Of course, a multinational force would be always be more acceptable and beneficial of world opinion. This is regardless of the current perception of which one may or may not have towards the United States. However, I don't see how, that would affect the United States, because of world wide opinion while people get massacred and killed. Did you not see or hear Gadaffi in the early days, and ordering sorties to fire into protesters.

2. Our equipment and military personnel is torn up from Iraq and Afghanistan and needs time to be rebuilt, not further missions, and we're still in Afghanistan on a combat stance.

Elaborate, please? How is equipment and personnel torn up? IRRC, how many current MEU's are deployed? Whats the status of the 101 and 82nd? How about the Rangers? Your telling me that the readiness of these units are non existence and that they are ill equipped? The CVN's deployed, they are depleted? The pilots aren't ready, even though on deployment, they train constantly? How about the USN, logistically supply these ships, when deployed, they are not organized?

If our US military wasn't ready, I guess there wouldn't be nothing stopping an ICBM? Our Radars, wouldn't have operators. I am sorry. Everyday, Air Force and STRATCOM is monitoring situations in the World. Everyday we have personal manning ICBM's, everyday we have pilots on stand-by.

I am not sure if you aware, the dedication, and the professional that is displayed day n and day out from the United States Military.

So not ready? Torn up? Ill equipped? Sorry, I don't think so.

3. All this said, I still expect the UN to call on us as other major powers around the world are either incapable, unwilling, or both.

The UN can't, not legally. If what you say, and other Powers are unwilling, the Secretary General, is supposed to speak for members countries. Not vice versa. So if the Security Council vetos, nothing will come out of the United Nations. And I can guarantee you, China nor Russia would do anything, on the side of intervention.

What did the UN do during Rwanda?

4. In light of point 1, it's politically dumb of the Libyan dissident military officers to ask for our help because it removes more of the chance of them receiving any legitimacy from the Libyan public once the conflict is over if they only overthrew Gaddafi off our backsides.

Dependent, if they don't have a voice afterwards, and are all shot and killed. Personally, Gadaffi has been on the Radar, well before Osama Bin Ladin. He has many American lifes that he is responsible for. As well as many civilians.

There is a difference of humanitarian aid, and a no fly-zone to enforce that aid. To maintain the peace. And prevent the deaths of a mass city.

5. I also debate the soundness in logic, even if Gaddafi is a bad guy and it'd be best for us if he were gone, of entangling ourselves in what at this point is de facto a Libyan civil war. Once we help break something, we have to help fix it as occurred in Iraq and Afghanistan, and there's zero clue out there on who is going to be leading Libya once Gaddafi is gone or whether Libya would even exist in its current form, and it'd be best for our PR image in the Arab world if we don't play kingmaker again.

Have to agree with you here. What would be the end result? Who takes up the vaccum? Will it be full of fundamentalists? What does that say for US involvement? US is pretty limited in that, IMHO.

[citanon]

.....
I would however support the deployment of U.S Special Forces. Events like this are the reason they were activated in the first place. It would also give us a smaller footprint on the ground there. The Libyan people have the momentum on their side now, they just need that extra little nudge of a 'force multiplier' or two :)

Yep. We'd have to do airstrikes in any case. Having them directed by forces on the ground will be far more effective at bringing the war to an end quickly.

I think the difference between Libya and Iraq and Afghanistan is that the people are mostly against Qhadafi and pro-democracy, and it looks like they can govern too.

[joshduck541]

Rebels corner fleeing Gadhafi forces after battle - Yahoo! News

I bet 10th SFG is gearing up for deployment as we speak. I'm sure they're chomping at the bit to get there yesterday.

[kato]

there is an ESG with 2000 marines on board nearby

Except said ESG just offloaded two thirds of its troops in Pakistan last month for yet another "temporary" surge to AFG.

There is a difference of humanitarian aid, and a no fly-zone to enforce that aid. To maintain the peace. And prevent the deaths of a mass city.

Umm, "maintaining the peace" would mean bombarding the rebels and their strongholds. Because they're the only ones that are breaking it. Technically.

[rj1]

Of course, a multinational force would be always be more acceptable and beneficial of world opinion. This is regardless of the current perception of which one may or may not have towards the United States. However, I don't see how, that would affect the United States, because of world wide opinion while people get massacred and killed. Did you not see or hear Gadaffi in the early days, and ordering sorties to fire into protesters.

In a situation such as this, we should only go if most everyone supports it and other countries are contributing. This if it's done should be a mostly global enterprise. I'm not asking for isolationism, I'm asking for others to give contributions since this affects other places far more than it affects us. If the rest of the world can't contribute, that speaks for itself. And yes I saw Gaddafi.

Elaborate, please? How is equipment and personnel torn up? IRRC, how many current MEU's are deployed? Whats the status of the 101 and 82nd? How about the Rangers? Your telling me that the readiness of these units are non existence and that they are ill equipped? The CVN's deployed, they are depleted? The pilots aren't ready, even though on deployment, they train constantly? How about the USN, logistically supply these ships, when deployed, they are not organized?

If our US military wasn't ready, I guess there wouldn't be nothing stopping an ICBM? Our Radars, wouldn't have operators. I am sorry. Everyday, Air Force and STRATCOM is monitoring situations in the World. Everyday we have personal manning ICBM's, everyday we have pilots on stand-by.

I am not sure if you aware, the dedication, and the professional that is displayed day n and day out from the United States Military.

So not ready? Torn up? Ill equipped? Sorry, I don't think so.

Go talk to an air winger in the Marine Corps, look at their equipment, and see how f*cking ready they are. Will they turn down the job? Of course not. But most of us have the common sense to look at what damage 9 years in the desert has done to both the personnel and equipment and they need a breather so they can rebuilt and restored. You're in effect arguing to keep the car driving and never stop every so often to put gasoline or oil in to keep it running properly.

The UN can't, not legally. If what you say, and other Powers are unwilling, the Secretary General, is supposed to speak for members countries. Not vice versa. So if the Security Council vetos, nothing will come out of the United Nations. And I can guarantee you, China nor Russia would do anything, on the side of intervention.

What did the UN do during Rwanda?

First off, it's not bright to be comparing what is at this point a civil war to systemic genocide. Some people have died as one side shot at the other, that's what happens in war, we're not into genocide yet.

As far as what the UN did, a force led by Romeo Dallaire, flaws and all.

If other powers are unwilling, and we did it anyway to help these generals take effective power from Gaddafi, their legitimacy as rulers is no different than the Saudi king in the public's eyes. And that's not a good thing for our future influence if we want to have a nice person running Libya in the future. For powers I'm not even talking the UN, more the EU and also someone like Turkey since they're a Muslim democracy.

Dependent, if they don't have a voice afterwards, and are all shot and killed. Personally, Gadaffi has been on the Radar, well before Osama Bin Ladin. He has many American lifes that he is responsible for. As well as many civilians.

There is a difference of humanitarian aid, and a no fly-zone to enforce that aid. To maintain the peace. And prevent the deaths of a mass city.

What's the difference between Gaddafi and Mugabe in all honesty? And if you're going to intervene in Libya because Gaddafi is a bad guy shouldn't we have intervened in Zimbabwe? Although if we did everyone would look at us in a neo-colonialist vibe and it would kill our foreign policy in Africa.

citanon: This is moronic. Are we on the side of democracy or not? Are we a force for justice and freedom, or, are we, as the Arab world has long suspected, a a self serving nation supporting despots for the expediency of our own greed?

Whether we help overthrow Gaddafi or not isn't going to change Arabs' opinions of what they are. I'm arguing that the best way to support democracy is to be part of a group offering military help instead of doing it ourselves because any future government that receives solely American military help to come to power will be looked at as another Arab king illegitimately in power thanks to American influence.

Here is a people casting of the shackles of one of the most despotic regimes in the Middle East, young men who do not even know how to use a gun fighting against murderers and mercenaries using anti-aircraft guns to mow down unarmed civilians. One of the clearest examples of good battling against evil in modern history and we are sitting on the sidelines, wringing our hands.

A people? There's no "a people", the notion of "the people" is a false construct with no meaning outside the term itself unless you define who "the people" are. For starters, it's not everyone, since some people and tribes in western Libya support Gaddafi. Gaddafi could leave the country tomorrow, those people will still exist. And the opposition itself is made up of many disparate groups in eastern Libya, be they dissident military officers looking to orchestrate not a revolution but a coup d'etat like occurred in Egypt or the various tribes that probably want to see their tribes come to power, who once Gaddafi is gone these groups could turn on each other just like happened in Iraq to try and make sure they're at the top of the food chain. This is how things are in...civil wars! We have absolutely zero clue what the hell is going to happen once Gaddafi is gone and if we're going to help overthrow him we damn better have that figured out first, because I'm smart enough to acknowledge it's likely that the Philadelphia Congress isn't walking through the door.

[dave lukins]

we should consider sending in special forces to coordinate air strikes if there is firm support for that amongst the rebels.

Military satellites could do the job if necessary support or not ;)

[Dago]

In a situation such as this, we should only go if most everyone supports it and other countries are contributing. This if it's done should be a mostly global enterprise. I'm not asking for isolationism, I'm asking for others to give contributions since this affects other places far more than it affects us. If the rest of the world can't contribute, that speaks for itself. And yes I saw Gaddafi.

I'm not asking, what we may all like to see. I'm pointing out what may occur. Wishing for other countries, to lend support, or intervene. Either you believe in something your doing or you don't.

Personally, if it comes down. Gadaffi has had his time. He has many American death he is responsible for. So we are very much involved, we been involved in the past decades.

Go talk to an air winger in the Marine Corps, look at their equipment, and see how f*cking ready they are. Will they turn down the job? Of course not. But most of us have the common sense to look at what damage 9 years in the desert has done to both the personnel and equipment and they need a breather so they can rebuilt and restored. You're in effect arguing to keep the car driving and never stop every so often to put gasoline or oil in to keep it running properly.

I am not saying, that equipment have been restricted. And equipment have taken wear n tear. I am speaking of readiness. And the United States still has immense capability, with equipment supporting brigades and divisions in tip top fighting condition.

I think your overestimating a bit.

Your essentially, saying that they drive the car without any gas. And we deploy MEU's and Navy CVBG's without any capability at all.

Are you seriously, arguing the US Military has no capability at all, at deploying a fighting force to fend off an attack?

God help us, than huh?

First off, it's not bright to be comparing what is at this point a civil war to systemic genocide. Some people have died as one side shot at the other, that's what happens in war, we're not into genocide yet.

Yet. No one was comparing. I was merely pointing out the similarities early on before it got too genocide. And even when genocide did occur, the UN failed to act.

What makes you think now, when its not even genocide yet, that action will come from the UN? Thats faulty logic.

As far as what the UN did, a force led by Romeo Dallaire, flaws and all.

OF course.

If other powers are unwilling, and we did it anyway to help these generals take effective power from Gaddafi, their legitimacy as rulers is no different than the Saudi king in the public's eyes. And that's not a good thing for our future influence if we want to have a nice person running Libya in the future. For powers I'm not even talking the UN, more the EU and also someone like Turkey since they're a Muslim democracy.

Your talking, that the United States would topple Gadaffi. No one is suggesting that. What is being suggested, is establishing a no-fly zone, that the west sold him, to bomb his own people. Regardless, we sold em the stuff. Either way, if we intervene, we will get blamed. Atleast let us be blamed by fixing it up, and saving some lifes. Instead of being blamed that the United States sold em the stuff, which killed civilians and kids... What could be worse? Hmmm legitimacy, or a prolonged Dictator, empowered by the West.

Talking about a nice guy in the future, there isn't a nice guy in there now. In fact, any moment now, he is ready to massacre his own people.

avoiding a massacre or PR...

And, this big intervention you are arguing, there wouldn't be any boots on the ground. Just crippling there air force... and maybe a cruise missile where gadaffi resides..

What's the difference between Gaddafi and Mugabe in all honesty? And if you're going to intervene in Libya because Gaddafi is a bad guy shouldn't we have intervened in Zimbabwe? Although if we did everyone would look at us in a neo-colonialist vibe and it would kill our foreign policy in Africa.

Mugabe, killed Americans in Germany? I didn't know that he supported international terrorism in the last decades.

And whats the difference? We'll, we are talking about a no-fly zone. Is Zimbabwe using air assets to bomb there own civilians?

And maybe frankly, why? Maybe your right the US can't act anywhere, and maybe its easier to do in Libya.

Whether we help overthrow Gaddafi or not isn't going to change Arabs' opinions of what they are. I'm arguing that the best way to support democracy is to be part of a group offering military help instead of doing it ourselves because any future government that receives solely American military help to come to power will be looked at as another Arab king illegitimately in power thanks to American influence.

And, how wrong will they be? American policy, should be dictated on the ignorance of others on the situation?

How would we empower anyone? We don't even have contacts there.... what is being talked about is a no-fly zone. The United States wouldn't have any say on who would take power. I think whats only being proposed is, making sure the Libyan air force isn't a fighting capable force, in this environment.

[Officer of Engineers]

I am not saying, that equipment have been restricted. And equipment have taken wear n tear. I am speaking of readiness. And the United States still has immense capability, with equipment supporting brigades and divisions in tip top fighting condition.

I think your overestimating a bit.

I think you are extremely over-estimating the immediate response capabilities. There simply is not enough time for a build up. At best, the US can deliver a battalion, not a brigade, and certainly not a division. Within 90 days, yeah, we can surge, but as of today? The Brits, Canucks, and the French can supply a company each. The US can get a battalion in. That's it.

Gone are the days of the cold war when we had entire brigades and divisions ready to move on a week's notice.

Your essentially, saying that they drive the car without any gas. And we deploy MEU's and Navy CVBG's without any capability at all.

Are you seriously, arguing the US Military has no capability at all, at deploying a fighting force to fend off an attack?

God help us, than huh?

Those deployed forces have jobs to do, ie to watch China, Iran, Korea, and Russia. Take them away to goto Lybia and you have to backfill ... or accept the hole you've just created by withdrawing and the simple fact is, militarily speaking, a hole is intolerable.

Yet. No one was comparing. I was merely pointing out the similarities early on before it got too genocide. And even when genocide did occur, the UN failed to act.

Wrong. The General, actually scratched that, My General failed to act.

The UNSC failure is more than noted but that does not reflect on mission success. Both UNPROFOR and UNAMIR faced the same bureaucratic hurdles. UNPROFOR succeeded. UNAMIR failed. I will let you to do the research why.

What makes you think now, when its not even genocide yet, that action will come from the UN? Thats faulty logic.

There is one big difference. UNPROFOR and UNAMIR were already on the ground. There is no such thing in Libya ... and neither side has asked for an intervention force, ie a Chapter VI intervention. Baring that, a Chapter VII is necessary and that practically means a member nation notifies the UN that she is going in with full guns blazing with or without UN approval. The UN has a choice in that regard - support the intervention or declare an illegal invasion. Normally, the intervening nation has all her legal i's dotted and legal t's crossed so that the UNSC only choice is either to support the intervention or abstain from condemning it.

[Dago]

I think you are extremely over-estimating the immediate response capabilities. There simply is not enough time for a build up. At best, the US can deliver a battalion, not a brigade, and certainly not a division. Within 90 days, yeah, we can surge, but as of today? The Brits, Canucks, and the French can supply a company each. The US can get a battalion in. That's it.

Gone are the days of the cold war when we had entire brigades and divisions ready to move on a week's notice.

We still have a large force in Afghanistan. For years, we have done it with far less. I am sure, if the need were too arise, we could rotate some units out of there.

1st Brigade of the 10th Mountain, is set too return. The 2nd Brigade has returned. And the 3rd is still in Afghanistan. Is the 4th well rested?

I know both 101 and 82 are deployed. But all three, are fast reaction. Thats the environment they are made for. Light.

What about Marines MEU's?

75th Ranger Regiment? I don't think all the battalions are deployed.

And other SOF personal.

[Officer of Engineers]

What you're missing is sustainment. Yes, you can get them there but can they stay? Or worst, can they get out? Within the next 7 days, I would not be commit to anything above a US battalion, especially in a hostile environment where they would outgunned, outnumbered, and out-positioned.