[General Battuta]

That responsibility should not be unilateral.

[Mustang19]

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.

True. American airpower could end the war in a heartbeat. Gadaffi has little left besides foreign mercenaries and the brigade of 5000 or so soldiers that have stayed loyal to him. A few days of airstrikes and whatever the loyalists have left will be gone. Collateral damage sounds like it would be an issue, but considering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and so on the US hasn't been particularly stellar in this department and there's no reason to start worrying about that now. Collateral damage has drawn little international derision compared to the other things the United States has done anyway. The real question with international opinion has more to do with the legitimacy of intervention, and that's largely secured as most of the world detests what Gadaffi is doing. Of course, a UN mandate would be even better. And then there is the question of what Libyans want, and what the opposition government is capable of.

Not all Libyans want American troops in the country but most seem to want a no fly zone. What I think might justify a NFZ in this case is the fact that the people we are helping have already done most of the work, even working toward forming a new government without triggering a civil war, and they have actually asked for international help. This contrasts with Afghanistan and Iraq where most if not virtually all of the population didn't want America over in the first place and we were basically picking sides in a factional war. All the United States needs to do is support an already strong mass movement by balancing out their lack of heavy equipment and air power against the ruling minority. Rather than worsen it's image this is an opportunity for the US to win brownie points with the Arab world.

Hopefully, though, the rebels will win on their own. This would entail no risk to the United States' international image. Then again the result of a rebel victory is a big question. Gadaffi wasn't the most friendly guy to us but at least he was predictable and sold us oil. If the rebellion is successful the result could be a functioning democracy, or it could mean a militant islamist state or a descent into anarchy. In any case the US should do whatever it can to shape the current opposition government into a democracy and establish good relationships with it. We might have to learn to live with these guys.

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.

A UN mandate would still make things more look legit. It doesn't matter what "we" think, the opinion of the international community will shape the perception of anything we do.

[achtung]

http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/03/07/ras.lanuf.libya.wedeman/

Felt it was an interesting read.

[Mustang19]

Although I didn't see it, a print reporter friend told me they had spent much of the afternoon smoking hashish. To borrow a line from one of my old scripts, "morale is high, and so are the troops."

[Dilmah G]

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.

I think flying GCAS to wipe his brigade out has the potential to be far more harmful, as well as send out a worse message than enacting an NFZ over the place. In addition to this, the current RoE for US forces, AFAIK, is much closer to what CW forces had in place, and would almost certainly require some of our boots on the ground to act as JTACs for any incoming aircraft.

And I believe the Libyans expressed some point of view that opposed an armed intervention of that kind, fearing another Iraq or Afghanistan (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been keeping up to speed with this apart from listening to the radio).

True. American airpower could end the war in a heartbeat. Gadaffi has little left besides foreign mercenaries and the brigade of 5000 or so soldiers that have stayed loyal to him. A few days of airstrikes and whatever the loyalists have left will be gone. Collateral damage sounds like it would be an issue, but considering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and so on the US hasn't been particularly stellar in this department and there's no reason to start worrying about that now. Collateral damage has drawn little international derision compared to the other things the United States has done anyway. The real question with international opinion has more to do with the legitimacy of intervention, and that's largely secured as most of the world detests what Gadaffi is doing. Of course, a UN mandate would be even better. And then there is the question of what Libyans want, and what the opposition government is capable of.

Oh, believe me, collateral damage is going to turn into a huge issue, if you let it go unchecked. Or hell, if it happens at all. The fact that there are no JTACs or relevantly trained ATCs on the ground down there means that we have no real way of accurately directing air strikes, and when the collateral damage may involve the civilian populace and hell, the rebels themselves, the price overall may be far, far, too high.

Remember, you don't take out a toothpick with a bunker buster.

Anyway, do any of you guys know what this UN envoy's doing? My internet's been slowed to dial-up (Australian ISPs).

[StarSlayer]

Dilmah's thoughts

Thats pretty much sums up why I was advocating doing some up front research before we do anything.  Having an accurate analysis on whether or not our intervention would be received properly and what would shake out afterward is paramount. If we where to provide some air cover I would expect maybe some SoCom assets on the ground working in conjunction with the rebels to SOFLAM for limited air strikes.  Any kind of general air campaign would really do more harm then good. 

[Dilmah G]

Oh yeah, that's fair enough. I appear to have only skim-read the first half of your post, and really only replied to the second half. Oopsies.

[Mustang19]

True. American airpower could end the war in a heartbeat. Gadaffi has little left besides foreign mercenaries and the brigade of 5000 or so soldiers that have stayed loyal to him. A few days of airstrikes and whatever the loyalists have left will be gone. Collateral damage sounds like it would be an issue, but considering Iraq, Afghanistan, Kosovo and so on the US hasn't been particularly stellar in this department and there's no reason to start worrying about that now. Collateral damage has drawn little international derision compared to the other things the United States has done anyway. The real question with international opinion has more to do with the legitimacy of intervention, and that's largely secured as most of the world detests what Gadaffi is doing. Of course, a UN mandate would be even better. And then there is the question of what Libyans want, and what the opposition government is capable of.

Oh, believe me, collateral damage is going to turn into a huge issue, if you let it go unchecked. Or hell, if it happens at all. The fact that there are no JTACs or relevantly trained ATCs on the ground down there means that we have no real way of accurately directing air strikes, and when the collateral damage may involve the civilian populace and hell, the rebels themselves, the price overall may be far, far, too high.

Remember, you don't take out a toothpick with a bunker buster.

Anyway, do any of you guys know what this UN envoy's doing? My internet's been slowed to dial-up (Australian ISPs).

Here's Fox News on the UN thing.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/03/08/group-calls-libyan-envoys-removal-post-investigator-mercenaries/

Apparently the UN assigned a Libyan envoy to investigate human rights violations by mercenaries ("The Working Group on the use of mercenaries as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise of the rights of peoples to self-determination", a group started in 2005). Of course this is the worst person you would want on that group and the UN Watch wants her out.

FACs aren't essential for air support. NATO used visual ID and JSTARS in Kosovo and it worked out well enough. The NATO aircraft had to keep above 10,000 feet to avoid the Serb air defenses, which resulted in some visual ID problems and nasty collateral damage issues. But what's left of the Libyan army is somewhat less professional than even the Serbs, and their air defense network should not be much of a problem after some softening up. This will allow low-flying air strikes and better visuals.

The US could do what it did in Afghanistan and Kurdistan and deploy SF to spot for the airstrikes. This would put troops on the ground though and wouldn't be an optimal solution. JSTARS (basically an AWACS for ground targets) is enough and doesn't require a single soldier to set foot in Libya. It would be a good idea not to bomb urban areas though since protesters have been making use of the arms and ammunition stored in cities.

People will complain about collateral damage, but it will pass. The Libyan civil war will last for a few months at most, but a new US-friendly state in the Middle East would be a major asset in the long term. Besides, the opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan has little to do with collateral damage and much more to do with the fact that the people of these countries (or at least a significant number of them) want America out. Libya is different because the people are actually asking for our help.

Remember, you don't take out a toothpick with a bunker buster.

As long as it's in the open desert or on a military installation you can hit it with whatever you want. It just might be a good idea to avoid hitting targets in cities unless necessary.

And I believe the Libyans expressed some point of view that opposed an armed intervention of that kind, fearing another Iraq or Afghanistan (correct me if I'm wrong, I haven't been keeping up to speed with this apart from listening to the radio).

The media is pretty much going off of the individual opinions of whatever fighters they come across. I don't know what the official opposition government thinks. However I did hear that some fighters were interviewed and they said they are opposed to the American army entering the country even if they may want air cover. I get the impression they want our help, but not a military occupation or troop presence.

Thats pretty much sums up why I was advocating doing some up front research before we do anything.  Having an accurate analysis on whether or not our intervention would be received properly and what would shake out afterward is paramount. If we where to provide some air cover I would expect maybe some SoCom assets on the ground working in conjunction with the rebels to SOFLAM for limited air strikes.  Any kind of general air campaign would really do more harm then good. 

An air campaign wouldn't be ideal, but it is better than letting the opposition lose. Collateral damage is a short-term problem. It will pass. I would much rather see a US-friendly government in Libya with some mild animosity for us helping them out rather than Gadaffi still in power. Again the best thing that could happen is that the rebels could win without our help, but the war looks stalemated and if this goes on for a while it means that the opposition isn't going to make it on it's own.

[Mars]

The worry is that the new "US friendly state" will be every bit as evil as the last government.

[Flipside]

The thing is, whilst I agree that it is terrible to watch people suffer because their leader is a complete maniac, it's been shown time and time again that simply stepping in and imposing a different system over the top doesn't work. We often make the mistake of believing that 'Morals' are a genetic trait that is identical across the species and that 'Right and Wrong', despite years of evidence to the contrary, are mutually exclusive situations.

If the UN decide that this behaviour is unacceptable, and decide to impose a no-fly zone or the like, the well and good, but it's not an easy decision to make, despite the suffering. As much as I hate to say it, in some respects the countries involved have bought this fear of getting involved on themselves. These were the same people who cheered Al Megrahi as a hero when he returned, possibly coerced, it's difficult to say, but after those kinds of open displays of disdain and dislike for the countries involved, questions of responsibility aside, it's hardly surprising that the UN need to think long and hard about the ramifications of any involvement.

[Mustang19]

The worry is that the new "US friendly state" will be every bit as evil as the last government.

It's too early to even talk about a state. This is the closest thing the opposition has to a united government. So far they are entirely reliant on mass support and it would be hard for this "opposition government" made up of activists and civil servants to impose dictatorial rule. If anything, the greatest danger is that Libya will collapse into anarchy and stop selling oil. Even if the new government was evil, it's much better if we get on good terms with them and ensure they become an America friendly sort of evil.

The thing is, whilst I agree that it is terrible to watch people suffer because their leader is a complete maniac, it's been shown time and time again that simply stepping in and imposing a different system over the top doesn't work. We often make the mistake of believing that 'Morals' are a genetic trait that is identical across the species and that 'Right and Wrong', despite years of evidence to the contrary, are mutually exclusive situations.

I am not even concerned about the ethical part. I just know that Libyan oil production has fallen 80% because of the war and it's best to get this thing over with as soon as possible. Even better if at the end of the day Libya ends up as a liberal capitalist state and opens it's oil fields to foreign investment.

If the UN decide that this behaviour is unacceptable, and decide to impose a no-fly zone or the like, the well and good, but it's not an easy decision to make, despite the suffering. As much as I hate to say it, in some respects the countries involved have bought this fear of getting involved on themselves. These were the same people who cheered Al Megrahi as a hero when he returned, possibly coerced, it's difficult to say, but after those kinds of open displays of disdain and dislike for the countries involved, questions of responsibility aside, it's hardly surprising that the UN need to think long and hard about the ramifications of any involvement.

There are certainly Libyans who benefit from and are loyal to Gadaffi's government. But they are clearly not that many. The sheer scale and success of the opposition movement, contrasted with how quickly the Libyan army collapsed and how foreign mercenaries were needed just to stop unarmed protesters, shows how little legitimacy and popular support the current government has. I would be a little wary of getting involved too, if the Libyan people weren't absolutely begging for humanitarian aid and air cover.

If you are just saying it's best to take time to think, that's understandable. Considering America's record of nation building in the Middle East it's best if the Libyan people believe they can establish their own state without direction from the West. There is time to let an opposition government form, understand their intentions, and decide if they are worth helping. But overall I think what is happening in Libya is good and may well end up netting the US a new ally. And there is the off chance that it will encourage the people of Iran and Syria to rise up as well.

[StarSlayer]

The worry is that the new "US friendly state" will be every bit as evil as the last government.

It's too early to even talk about a state. This is the closest thing the opposition has to a united government. So far they are entirely reliant on mass support and it would be hard for this "opposition government" made up of activists and civil servants to impose dictatorial rule. If anything, the greatest danger is that Libya will collapse into anarchy and stop selling oil. Even if the new government was evil, it's much better if we get on good terms with them and ensure they become an America friendly sort of evil.

That's the attitude we had during the Cold War and you can very easily trace all the giant piles of **** we have had to deal with since the fall of the USSR to the foreign policy choices we made due to this thought process. 

[Mustang19]

That's the attitude we had during the Cold War and you can very easily trace all the giant piles of **** we have had to deal with since the fall of the USSR to the foreign policy choices we made due to this thought process. 

Like South Korea, Taiwan, and the Greek Civil War? We totally should have let communism win those countries. 

There's a difference between overthrowing a democratic government, ala Iran 1953, and ousting a sclerotic police state which is universally hated.

[Flipside]

I am not even concerned about the ethical part. I just know that Libyan oil production has fallen 80% because of the war and it's best to get this thing over with as soon as possible. Even better if at the end of the day Libya ends up as a liberal capitalist state and opens it's oil fields to foreign investment.

Oddly enough, for an outside opinion, that's a viable concern, countries are relying more and more heavily on each other, which is a good thing in the long term, but demands a stable chain of supply and demand.

There are certainly Libyans who benefit from and are loyal to Gadaffi's government. But they are clearly not that many. The sheer scale and success of the opposition movement, contrasted with how quickly the Libyan army collapsed and how foreign mercenaries were needed just to stop unarmed protesters, shows how little legitimacy and popular support the current government has. I would be a little wary of getting involved too, if the Libyan people weren't absolutely begging for humanitarian aid and air cover.

If you are just saying it's best to take time to think, that's understandable. Considering America's record of nation building in the Middle East it's best if the Libyan people believe they can establish their own state without direction from the West. There is time to let an opposition government form, understand their intentions, and decide if they are worth helping. But overall I think what is happening in Libya is good and may well end up netting the US a new ally. And there is the off chance that it will encourage the people of Iran and Syria to rise up as well.

True, but I'm just holding in mind how quickly the allied forces turned from Liberators into Oppressors as soon as they'd done what was wanted in Iraq. America isn't beyond having it's obsession with the 'Rights of Man' manipulated and it wouldn't be the first time they had been duped into a war because they believed information that turned out to be manipulated specifically for the purpose of invoking an emotional response. My concern is that any UN presence in Libya would only be seen as a good thing for as long as they serve a purpose that coincides with what those who oppose Gaddaffi want, and then the worm could turn terrifyingly fast.

[Mustang19]

The important thing to watch is the opposition's progress towards establishing a constitution and a transitional government. Here is essentially their platform, in English. A functioning democracy and a constitution to preserve it is all that's necessary. Capitalism will do the rest.

One need only look at the past 100 years to see that functioning democracies turn to capitalism, and capitalist countries befriend the US. The business elite in every country for the most part wants peace and trade. They use their influence to maintain a republican form of government which the wealthy, in most cases, depend on for survival against wealth redistribution. And they also push the country toward integration with other democratic capitalist nations.

This is how things have worked for quite a while, with rare exceptions. And yes, you can call me a naive neocon if you like.

[Flipside]

Depends what sort of capitalism you're into really. Security companies have absolutely thrived on Military contracts in Iraq. Capitalism comes in many forms, and exploiting War for profit would be considered text-book Capitalism by some quarters (mostly those who own shares in said companies). Capitalism is a good way to maintain a country, but not always a good way to run it, because each and every company is, by its very nature, competing with every other company, and a lot of companies have shown that if an underhand trick will get them an advantage in the selling war, they aren't beyond using it.

Capitalism is a cut-throat business, and, as recent bail-outs show, it's not really capitalism that we are promoting, it's a sort of privately funded control system with a safety net made out of Taxpayers money. Personally, I think we get so worried about Religion getting involved with Government that we forget that it's not only religion that is trying to get its claws into what the public think and do. America has corporations, but it is not a corporation in and of itself, and this whole concept of Lobbying and corporations dictating policies that are social matters, not commercial ones, is something that is genuiney unnerving.

[Mustang19]

Depends what sort of capitalism you're into really. Security companies have absolutely thrived on Military contracts in Iraq. Capitalism comes in many forms, and exploiting War for profit would be considered text-book Capitalism by some quarters (mostly those who own shares in said companies). Capitalism is a good way to maintain a country, but not always a good way to run it, because each and every company is, by its very nature, competing with every other company, and a lot of companies have shown that if an underhand trick will get them an advantage in the selling war, they aren't beyond using it.

Iraq, I believe, was a special case. The expectation was that the Iraq war would not threaten international trade but rather increase it with the oil industry being liberalized and all, regardless of what actually happened. What is highly unusual is for two capitalist countries to go to war with each other.

[Flipside]

Well, Britain and Germany bumped heads on two very famous occasions (though it could be argued that by the second time Germany was a Fascist state, but it did still indulge heavily in Capitalism), but yes, for the main part in the last 50 years Capitalist countries have been moderately peaceful towards each other, but I do find myself wondering what would happen if the likes of Communism or Extremism or any other of the 'threats to Capitalism' there have been over the years hadn't been there to act as a unifying force. If the whole world turned Capitalist, I wonder if the system would turn on itself and you'd end up with Corporate Wars, which is probably much more fun in game format than real life

Edit: And on that note I'd just like to say: Minigun....miniminiminiGun. And if that rings a bell, congratulations, you are an official old-school gamer

[achtung]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-09-Libya-Gadhafi_N.htm?csp=34news

Seems like the rebels are still calling for support from the U.S. and its allies.

[Mustang19]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110310/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

Rebels are getting their ass kicked.

The rout came as the U.S. director of national intelligence stressed that Gadhafi's military was stronger than it has been described and said that "in the longer term ... the regime will prevail."

...

"We need help from the international community, but we just hear promises," said Mohammed Ali al-Zwei, a 48-year-old rebel fighter. "They are doing nothing."