Topic: War in Libya

[Cpt. Pain]

Earlier Dipsomanic, you said that US carriers would be one of the only locations from which the Coalition could operate from, or something to that effect. Infact, much of the Med. Contains NATO airfields and bases. For example, the RAF has access to installations on Cyprus, Malta, Sicily, and probably mainland Italy, all of which are easily within range of Lybian territory.

In range doesn't mean they'll have much loiter time as a no-fly zone relies on continual patrols rather than merely strike packages. France is in range of Libya for a strike package but of not much use when it comes to patrolling. Even with the obvious tanker support the closer you are the better when it comes to remaining on station without excessive logistic waste. My earlier comment was in also in regards to the initial set up where ground defences are engaged which hasn't happened as of yet. With that you need numbers to make sure the job is done properly and few of the nations offering support have the numbers to do so.

Edit: Breaking it down for newer readers:
Implementing the no-fly zone

Operation Odyssey Dawn? They have got to improve the random word association algorithm. Feeling flash backs to 2003 as cruise missiles start flying.

The bases that I mentioned are easily within range of Libya with plenty of loiter time. The French airforce are already patrolling Lybian airspace from land bases.


On another note, the Arab League have started playing silly buggers. They are not critising the airstrikes of Loyalist military units advancing on Bengazi, saying that they wanted 'the protection of civilians, not the bombing of more'. Ho hum, I guess it was to good to last.

[Sheepz]

On another note, the Arab League have started playing silly buggers. They are not critising the airstrikes of Loyalist military units advancing on Bengazi, saying that they wanted 'the protection of civilians, not the bombing of more'. Ho hum, I guess it was to good to last.

I think you mean condoning.

As regards a no fly zone, I believed it was ment to limit the use of Lybia's airforce and air defence, not allow for attacks on ground military sources that were endangering civillians. I assumed the remit only extended to the destuction of units that pose a threat to aircraft policing the zone.

[The GrimSqueaker]

The bases that I mentioned are easily within range of Libya with plenty of loiter time. The French airforce are already patrolling Lybian airspace from land bases.

The northern areas you mean. Libya is larger than you may think. They're only concentrating on certain regions for the time being rather than the entire country. Here's a map of the recent action and here's one with more detail. Still you could quite probably be right and if I'm wrong then I'm wrong. To answer your previous question, the amphib ships may be there to help with search and rescue if a pilot goes down.

Edit: Lets get some Aljazeera English in there.
International forces begin Libya strikes

[Killing Time]

As regards a no fly zone, I believed it was ment to limit the use of Lybia's airforce and air defence, not allow for attacks on ground military sources that were endangering civillians. I assumed the remit only extended to the destuction of units that pose a threat to aircraft policing the zone.

Except the UN resolution is more than just the implementation of a no fly zone.
It specifically went further to allow for any means short of ground invasion to protect civilians.
It is a clear mandate to bomb the beslubber out of any tank, armoured vehicle or man in a camo jacket waving a gun who happens to be pointing in the wrong direction.

[The GrimSqueaker]

I'm afraid the Arab League is being deliberately naive concerning the establishment of a no fly zone. It was quite clear and mentioned right from the start that even a limited no fly zone would require destruction of air defence assets and that only happens in one way.

[Irisado]

Yes, the Arab League is either being naive, or disingenuous, as the resolution from the UN was stronger than its secretary now seems to be suggesting.

What does worry me is that the initial reports suggest that the western half of the country seems to be getting behind Gadaffi even more than it was before the bombing started, with the British and French being portrayed as foreign powers seeking to capture Libya's oil reserves, while the eastern half of the country is very much in favour of allied action.  The makings of a civil war are, therefore, in place even at this early stage, and a protracted civil war is not going to be good news for anyone.

[Sheepz]

As regards a no fly zone, I believed it was ment to limit the use of Lybia's airforce and air defence, not allow for attacks on ground military sources that were endangering civillians. I assumed the remit only extended to the destuction of units that pose a threat to aircraft policing the zone.

Except the UN resolution is more than just the implementation of a no fly zone.
It specifically went further to allow for any means short of ground invasion to protect civilians.
It is a clear mandate to bomb the beslubber out of any tank, armoured vehicle or man in a camo jacket waving a gun who happens to be pointing in the wrong direction.

And, as other posters have said, this is not what the Arab League want. Naiveity, be it deliberate or otherwise, is the order of the day. Bombing of military targets that do not threaten Coalition aircraft is not a black and white issue. Not only does it endanger the lives of civillians in Gadaffi strongholds, it is also a tool for regime change. They are interfering in what is essentially a civil war, and whatever their motivations, there are a lot of dubious posturing going on. It has been commented by British Politicians that nothing short of the removal of Colonel Gadaffi can protect civillians, and in this respect, I agree. However, that is also regime change, which is not something the West should be too eager to engage in.

[Killing Time]

And, as other posters have said, this is not what the Arab League want. Naiveity, be it deliberate or otherwise, is the order of the day.

Well Qatar still seem to be fully on board, as they're sending jets to join in the campaign.
Large chunks of the rest of the region are having their own problems, so can be forgiven for not wanting to set a precedent trying to keep everything as low key as possible.
Amr Mussa has back-tracked on his earlier comments anyway, claiming he was just stating that he was concerned about civilian casualties, but was in favour of the military action.

Bombing of military targets that do not threaten Coalition aircraft is not a black and white issue.
Not only does it endanger the lives of civillians in Gadaffi strongholds, it is also a tool for regime change. They are interfering in what is essentially a civil war, and whatever their motivations, there are a lot of dubious posturing going on. It has been commented by British Politicians that nothing short of the removal of Colonel Gadaffi can protect civillians, and in this respect, I agree. However, that is also regime change, which is not something the West should be too eager to engage in.

From my understanding of the UN resolution, it actually is pretty black and white.
- No invasion force.
- Establish a no fly zone.
- Do anything else to protect civilians.

The entire Libyan military is currently a threat to all civilians in rebel held areas, therefore the entire Libyan military is a legitimate target.
The only grey area is whether Gaddafi himself is a legitimate target, since he's obviously the biggest threat to civilians, but as a head of state has a certain amount of immunity.

[Sheepz]

Well Qatar still seem to be fully on board, as they're sending jets to join in the campaign.
Large chunks of the rest of the region are having their own problems, so can be forgiven for not wanting to set a precedent trying to keep everything as low key as possible.
Amr Mussa has back-tracked on his earlier comments anyway, claiming he was just stating that he was concerned about civilian casualties, but was in favour of the military action.

But the problem here comes from regime change which is inseparable from the protection of civilians. I'll elaborate below.

From my understanding of the UN resolution, it actually is pretty black and white.
- No invasion force.
- Establish a no fly zone.
- Do anything else to protect civilians.

The targetting of the Libyan military, despite whatever article 1973 states, is going beyond it's remit to protect civilians. This is an uprising, not state-terror. And while the immediate threat of a massacre in Benghazi has been averted, continued bombing of military targets only helps the rebels. If it helps them too much, it is regime change, repackaged. And that is not what the Arab League want. It isn't as black and white, as I've said, as just targetting things with guns. That's what the UN article states, but the situation is a bit more messy and a bit more fluid than that. An over-action by the Coalition will shift the balance of power, something they are not permitted to do.

The reason the Arab Leagues back is up is beacuse, in the act of protecting civilians they are both endangering them, and the continuation of the Gadaffi regime. And while I imagine he is not particularly popular in the Arab world either, they have their own problems, and having a spectrum of state's military power sat in the Mediterrainian supporting pro-democracy rebels is bound to make a few people twitchy, even if the West has no designs on them specifically.

It creates a situation whereby protesters know that they can go out and destabalize things, and traditional repression and the targetting of protestors is now definately out of the question. Mubarak got away with it in Egypt through the use of 'supporters', Mercs and Cops. But basically it is encouraging the disenfrancished to throw themselves onto bullets in the knowledge that they'll gain international support by doing so, ths hopefully leading the the collapse of other regimes. And that is the problem with targetting Libyan military units that are under the command of Gadaffi. You are not just protecting civilian's, but legitimizing their demands and supporting their own effort to depose their ruler through the act of destroying his means to defend himself.

Every action taken by this coalition will be reviewed and scrutinized now. The whole 'protection of civilians' is not a straightforward end in itself.

EDIT:

I haven't checked, since I'm posting from a public library and don't have time, but I'm pretty sure UAE and Qatar decided to join in before both the goals and endgame of the intervention were firmly established. PLus, you cannot view the Arab League as a singe bloc of one mind. Some are more progressive, and some are more regressive. Maybe I was analytically wrong to suggest that the Arab League were totally against what was going no, but stating that two nations have offered limited military assistance does not equate to them being in favour, either. Which is probably not what you were suggesting, just to head that off.