[achtung]

I feel we should, at least, be giving the rebels supplies (including weapons). A no-fly zone *might* be nice, but I feel supporting the rebels and avoiding troop deployments at all costs is best.

[Dilmah G]

Well Herra's post earlier addressed why we can't really take sides. I mean, I'd like to support the rebels myself and show his Air Force the door, but the message it sends isn't one that perhaps America, along with most of the first world can afford to support.

That would be a very unwise move on the part of a person who does not want a no fly zone imposed over his country.

Who knows what Gaddafi wants or how detached from reality he is.

Well they detained those Dutch pilots and they weren't posing much harm... He'll probably shoot down humanitarian planes on the grounds of 'spying' and 'breaching international law' like he did with the helo crew. 

[NGTM-1R]

The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.

The history of US air power is not nearly as dodgy as you'd assert, though its last outing in Gulf Two was marred by the classic overclaiming of capabilities. I am not overstating its abilities. I don't think anyone here is seriously asserting it can win a bloodless decision or anything like that. It can take away the ability to operate aircraft against the rebels and that's all that's being asked.

The suggestion that anyone who comes out in favor of it wants to see air-to-air is ridiculous. The performance of the Libyan Air Force so far has been so utterly pathetic (they've had jet aircraft lost to manual-directed heavy machine guns in ridiculously small numbers, night raids on Benghazi defeated with triple-A without radar guidance) that any actual attempt at a challenge is unlikely. They do not appear sufficiently trained or sufficiently willing to mount a credible campaign against the rebels; they almost certainly lack the will to try their luck against a carrier air wing or the training to do more than die pathetically if they try.

Herra, meanwhile, asks good questions, but he asks them twenty years and more too late. We have already made such commitments in the past. It's already clear what the answers are. They might not be appreciated, but they are evident.

[headdie]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12661604

The UN has appointed a new envoy on Libya and is to send a humanitarian team as the battle between forces loyal to Col Gaddafi and rebels intensifies.

The UN has taken note

[Herra Tohtori]

I would think those questions should be asked every time on a case-by-case basis.

But I see your point - historically, projections of military force have happened if it has been in the interests of the country in question to do so. Enemy of my enemy is my ally, but in this case Gaddafi is more than just one autocratic leader of a backward country - he represents all the other dictators of similarly backwater countries.

Certainly Gaddafi has no friends in the West. But to take sides against him and take a position that strongly supports the rebels with military force would set a precedent for all the rest of the countries experiencing civil unrest and uprisings.

It clearly tells the dictators that we're not going to sit on the sidelines and watch you commit the greatest misuse of authority a person can be guilty of and murder their own citizens.

It clearly tells the citizens of those countries that they have our support, that they can oust their leader and if they start killing them, they'll get military support from the west for their cause (either as open military action, equipment drops, or covert operations).


And, you know, in this sort of situation I could condone an intervention perfectly well (with an UN mandate) - if it were just one country in question where the citizens finally got fed up of their Great Leader and stood up for their rights. But it's not. It's pretty much the entire Mediterranean coastline of Africa and most of Middle-East.


What I'm asking is: Can the west (or if an UN mandate is considered, rest of the world) afford to send this sort of message? Can we back it up if either the citizens in all those countries (and this is the worst case scenario) start an uprising against their esteemed leaders, expecting support from us, and said leaders decide to call instead of folding and respond violently?

Do we have sufficient resources to actually deliver sufficient support to the people who counted on it? Or will they be left alone, harbouring a bit more resentment against the West for helping the Libyan rebels but not them?

I don't think this is a situation that has notable precedent in the history. US and other entities supporting revolutionary actions over the world have usually been more or less isolated cases. This is a major unrest/uprising affecting lots of countries simultaneously, and in a way intervening in one of the countries gives a precedent for the rest of the countries.


With this in mind I can fully well understand why every major player seems to be very very hesitant to commit their direct support for either side, outside of political and economical pressure on Gaddafi.

Clearly, everyone's sympathies are on the Rebels' side here, but committing support for them is just much more complicated than it should be.


There are some interesting parallels here to Winter War, actually. The sympathies of practically the whole world were on Finland's side, yet none of them were in a position to give any concrete support. The analogy is far from complete, but basically it's the same effect.


On the topic of UN - I doubt that avenue will result in any sort of military actions unless Russia and China stop their filibustering, but even a humanitarian mission would be better than nothing.

Of course, humanitarian aid would be given for both Loyalist and Rebel occupied areas equally...

[Bobboau]

Well Herra's post earlier addressed why we can't really take sides. I mean, I'd like to support the rebels myself and show his Air Force the door, but the message it sends isn't one that perhaps America, along with most of the first world can afford to support.

"we can't help you all because we are too busy helping all of these other people" is a much better reason not to help someone than "we can't help you because we don't want to give the wrong impression". we could very easily afford a no fly zone over half a dozen countries if we wanted to, we would have to do it one country at a time and they would have to be relatively close to one another but is we, as a world, wanted to do this, we could easily. handle it on a case by case basis, this case with our current situation we could very easily handle shooting down his planes and taking out is bases, we could have it done in 3 weeks if you include planning and moving resources.

[Mustang19]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110307/ap_on_re_us/us_arming_libya

Hey, at least we're not selling arms to Gadaffi anymore.

[Bobboau]

let me put it another way, if we do not act, then that sends a message to every two bit tin pot dictator out there, that they can massacre their own people and we will just look the other way, there are consequences to inaction, both sides of this coin send a message, what message do you think we should be sending?

[Dilmah G]

The performance of the Libyan Air Force so far has been so utterly pathetic (they've had jet aircraft lost to manual-directed heavy machine guns in ridiculously small numbers, night raids on Benghazi defeated with triple-A without radar guidance) that any actual attempt at a challenge is unlikely. They do not appear sufficiently trained or sufficiently willing to mount a credible campaign against the rebels; they almost certainly lack the will to try their luck against a carrier air wing or the training to do more than die pathetically if they try.

I agree. Three words: Gulf. Of. Sidra.

Herra's post I mostly agree with, if it were an isolated incident, this would be oh so much simpler.

Well Herra's post earlier addressed why we can't really take sides. I mean, I'd like to support the rebels myself and show his Air Force the door, but the message it sends isn't one that perhaps America, along with most of the first world can afford to support.

"we can't help you all because we are too busy helping all of these other people" is a much better reason not to help someone than "we can't help you because we don't want to give the wrong impression". we could very easily afford a no fly zone over half a dozen countries if we wanted to, we would have to do it one country at a time and they would have to be relatively close to one another but is we, as a world, wanted to do this, we could easily. handle it on a case by case basis, this case with our current situation we could very easily handle shooting down his planes and taking out is bases, we could have it done in 3 weeks if you include planning and moving resources.

Well if it's a no-fly zone today, what if it's a blockade tomorrow, and a full on invasion next week? But I see what you're saying, and I think that it depends on what Gaddafi does next. If we were to commit aid by air, I'd insist on a NFZ simply to protect aid aircraft, which has the nice side-effect of suppressing whatever attempts at local-airspace denial he'd like to try.

[headdie]

let me put it another way, if we do not act, then that sends a message to every two bit tin pot dictator out there, that they can massacre their own people and we will just look the other way, there are consequences to inaction, both sides of this coin send a message, what message do you think we should be sending?

The problem is if you go in unable to provide sufficient force you end up in a situation like in the aftermath of the first war in Iraq (Desert Storm?) where by the population resent your intervention because it failed to remove the leader and or leave the population exposed

[Herra Tohtori]

let me put it another way, if we do not act, then that sends a message to every two bit tin pot dictator out there, that they can massacre their own people and we will just look the other way, there are consequences to inaction, both sides of this coin send a message, what message do you think we should be sending?

Yes. This is a valid point of view.

It appears there is no right option. I am not going to say that abstaining from doing anything would be right, I am simply bringing up problems I see in the option of military intervention.

Advocatus diaboli and all that.

There's also the certainty of certain extremist groups going to play western military intervention as invasion, and any regime that manages to get in power will always be dubbed as west-controlled puppet government by said factions.

This has a potential to make people think they simply switched one overlord for another, and further expand the fertile recruiting grounds for all sorts of terrorist organizations (of which they already have abundance of to select from).

What the people in autocratic countries need is knowledge that they are in charge of their own future. I am unsure if this particular area could ever accept help for what it is, without assigning hidden meanings to it - real or fabricated.

[General Battuta]

The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.

The history of US air power is not nearly as dodgy as you'd assert

That's a groundless statement given that the assertion was 'it is dodgy, sometimes it works'. There's no gradation there and thus no way to dispute the gradation.

though its last outing in Gulf Two was marred by the classic overclaiming of capabilities. I am not overstating its abilities. I don't think anyone here is seriously asserting it can win a bloodless decision or anything like that. It can take away the ability to operate aircraft against the rebels and that's all that's being asked.

I agree. That's a very sexy, up-front, easy-to-see consequence. I'm concerned about stuff farther down the causal chain coming back to bite the US.

The suggestion that anyone who comes out in favor of it wants to see air-to-air is ridiculous.

No such suggestion was made.

Herra, meanwhile, asks good questions, but he asks them twenty years and more too late. We have already made such commitments in the past. It's already clear what the answers are. They might not be appreciated, but they are evident.

Foreign policy decisions like these are constantly reevaluated (though Obama might well want something to make him a 'wartime president' to nail his re-election.) I think the only circumstances under which I, as a private citizen, would be comfortable with military intervention is with a UN mandate.

[karajorma]

I feel we should, at least, be giving the rebels supplies (including weapons).

Cause that's never failed as a foreign policy.....

[Bobboau]

it has had negative consequences, but it did fulfill it's objective at the time.

[Dilmah G]

Well that's really the issue with it, isn't it? It might resolve the situation so the side we all like is the victor, but if down the line we have another Bin Laden or hell, another Gaddafi, things may not end so well for us in the future.

[achtung]

I feel we should, at least, be giving the rebels supplies (including weapons).

Cause that's never failed as a foreign policy.....

This situation seems a bit different than the typical "support the friendliest regardless of how good he is for his people" action we take in the middle east.

[Ravenholme]

The exercise of American power through, well, American air power has a dodgy history. Sometimes it works, but it's rarely as effective as quieter means of support, and it carries a whole suite of risks centered around the fact that it's so noisy and obvious. Anyone who comes out strongly in favor of it is as liable to want to see some good air-to-air combat as anything else.

The history of US air power is not nearly as dodgy as you'd assert

That's a groundless statement given that the assertion was 'it is dodgy, sometimes it works'. There's no gradation there and thus no way to dispute the gradation.

"When the Luftwaffe fly over, the allies duck. When the RAF flies over, the Axis duck. When the Americans fly over, EVERYONE ducks." - Nameless Allied Soldier

American airpower does have a lot of stigma (and not entirely groundless) attached with regards to being somewhat indiscriminate at times.

[General Battuta]

There are certainly cases where American air power has worked as a foreign policy tool - Allied Force, for instance, successfully achieved its policy goal. The problem is that even Allied Force had a 4:1 civilian:target casualty ratio, and it was absolutely one of the more successful interventions.

Libya presents an arguably even better case than Allied Force because the targets are purely aircraft and, unless you're the USS Vincennes, it's easy to tell military aircraft from civilians. But the diplomatic and historical consequences of intervening on the side of the rebels just aren't well-enough understood for me to be totally on board with endorsing it. I'm not necessarily against it either, but I'm hesitant.

[StarSlayer]

The thing that really bit us in the ass with the Russo Afghan war was that we operated through a third party, Pakistani Intelligence, rather then having a direct hand in the distribution.  If we were going to attempt either some kind of support package or air power intervention, I think we would need to get assets on the ground to really ascertain the long term outcomes before we were to take action. 
As far as actually providing some air support, there was an article recently posted on HLP that did an in depth analysis of the procedures we are using in Afghanistan.  Given that I tend to think we could probably provide air support with a high degree of precision and minimal collateral damage especially with the limited objectives such a campaign would entail.
As Battuta stated what shakes out as a result of that intervention is the bigger question we need to answer then that actual intervention itself.

[SypheDMar]

I feel that we have a Responsibility to Protect. Not all sovereign states have a right to do whatever it wants within its borders. I'm sure we agree on that.