Uprising in Libya

[Tribun]

I must say that Gadhaffi and his sons have handled this very expertly.

They correctly deduced the right amount of force to use against the rebels that would not rouse international outrage.

For example, while they are brutally putting down the rebellion; they are careful to give the appearance of selectivity.

In Tripoli, they're taking away masses of people. While a lot are being shot out of hand and dumped in unmarked graves, a lot more are simply being let free.

Likewise, while they are clearly using massive, overwhelming force to regain towns, e.g. indiscriminate tank and BM-21 shelling to soften the place up, they are careful to not totally smash the place to rubble.

Basically, they stop just short of killing enough of the population to avoid triggering huge international outcry and unrest and to try and maintain the appearance of 'an internal affair'.

This has worked before, see Saddam 1992-93 and Assad with Hama. Gadhaffi just miscalculated a bit on the effects it would have internationally if he continued.

I think the problem was that before, you could do very good at masking what you did. Nowadays this is next to impossible, although Gaddafi has tried very had to create a news blackout. The news and details that left the land over the net pretty much revealed every of his claims almost instantly as lies and showed graphically what really happened.

I think that contributed a lot.

On other things, the Brits are now also using guided missiles, and the regime of course claims to have shot down "several jets". Take a guess how many they really have shot down (hint: the number is propably smaller than 1). The of course the old claim that civilian areas were targeted. I bet that they'll show the victims of Gaddafi's own raids and claim that bombs did it.

Of course by now no one will believe them any longer anything.

[adam_grif]

The main difference between this and Iraqistan is that this was triggered by internal change and doesn't involve an actual invasion. In 2002 the zeitgeist around here was very much "America is going to war and asking for people to go with them", but for this one it's "The United Nations is helping an uprising".

[MKSheppard]

Randomnity:

It is exactly 8 years to the day that bush began the Iraq War on 19 March 2003.

[Sea Skimmer]

The US won't be able to salvo that many TLAMs again and again...there simply aren't that many USN assets in the AO, and I strongly suspect that Obama doesn't want to "take ownership" of the Libyan War.

We may well be able to do it again, because one of the vessel we have in the Med like that is USS Florida, one of our Ohio class SSGN conversions. That vessel may have up to 154 Tomahawks embarked on its own, though I doubt it was actually fully loaded. Doesn't matter though since we also have about 5,000 ALCM and JASSM cruise missiles we can launch from aircraft, and JASSM can be fired by a mere F-16, no big heavy bombers flying from CONUS required. Likewise several Coalition air forces can air launch cruise missiles, Britain has said it fired Storm Shadows from a few Tornado GR.4s flown direct from the UK. France has a version of the same weapon, and I do believe some of the other folks joining in have the wiring to launch JASSM. Much has changed since the Gulf War or even 1999 over Serbia when cruise missiles were still rare and US-Russia only. So basically, the US can fire stuff off like this and no one will even be able to tell who fired on what anymore. TLAM makes sense for a first strike since Libya couldn't get warning from reports of NATO aircraft taking off all over the Mediterranean but now it doesn't matter.

The range on JASSM is sufficient that an F-16 flying over the center of Libya can strike almost any spot in the country, and Tripoli could be attacked as soon as the launch plane went wheels up over its own base in Sicily. Very handy, and a pretty amazing contrast to the critical limitations of air power in the theater in WW2.

[MKSheppard]

I think the problem was that before, you could do very good at masking what you did. Nowadays this is next to impossible, although Gaddafi has tried very had to create a news blackout. The news and details that left the land over the net pretty much revealed every of his claims almost instantly as lies and showed graphically what really happened.

Well, that and he took so long to begin crushing the rebellion. That gave it time to get legs on the international stage of sympathy.

This is because he was so paranoid about military coups, etc that most of his gear was stored in the desert, far away from any population centers. It took him time to get people to run that stuff, and then transport it north where it could be used against the rebels.

If he had had more than just a small apparatus of secret police and praetorian guardsmen, he could have crushed the rebellion in a few days, and we would just be hand-wringing at this point.

[Sea Skimmer]

This is because he was so paranoid about military coups, etc that most of his gear was stored in the desert, far away from any population centers. It took him time to get people to run that stuff, and then transport it north where it could be used against the rebels.

If he had had more than just a small apparatus of secret police and praetorian guardsmen, he could have crushed the rebellion in a few days, and we would just be hand-wringing at this point.

Indeed, and that is exactly why why Saddam upgraded his Republican Guard into several army corps even before the Gulf War, and was thus able to suppress open rebellion in every province but Baghdad in barely more then two weeks. I do believe the Syrian Republican Guard is basically the strongest mechanized division ever, Egypt also had a divisional sized Republican Guard but it was simply not loyal enough to be willing to turn on open protests. Contrast Gaddafi basically had one loyal mechanized brigade and some weaker motorized infantry units, and that brigade was clearly deployed defensively around Tripoli during the first week plus of the conflict, its T-72s and 122mm SP howitzers were filmed numerous times scattered about in single vehicle checkpoints each with a weak squad of infantry in support. Once Tripoli was terrorized into submission he appears to have broken up that brigade, supplemented it with mercnaries and armed civilian supports, and sent a reinforced battalion task to attack each of Zawiyah, Misratah and the last one has been driving east towards Benghazi.

I of course do not have highly specific proof of this believe, but all the media reports, reports from the attacked cities and rebels and even film from Gaddafi government broadcasts all support the notion that his numbers are this weak. Shows what modern weapons can do; but then Zawiyah did hold out for two weeks with very little more for weapons then stones and hunting rifles. It was clearly only taken by shelling or burning every occupied building.

[thejester]

I must say that Gadhaffi and his sons have handled this very expertly.

They correctly deduced the right amount of force to use against the rebels that would not rouse international outrage.

For example, while they are brutally putting down the rebellion; they are careful to give the appearance of selectivity.

In Tripoli, they're taking away masses of people. While a lot are being shot out of hand and dumped in unmarked graves, a lot more are simply being let free.

Likewise, while they are clearly using massive, overwhelming force to regain towns, e.g. indiscriminate tank and BM-21 shelling to soften the place up, they are careful to not totally smash the place to rubble.

Basically, they stop just short of killing enough of the population to avoid triggering huge international outcry and unrest and to try and maintain the appearance of 'an internal affair'.

This has worked before, see Saddam 1992-93 and Assad with Hama. Gadhaffi just miscalculated a bit on the effects it would have internationally if he continued.

You've defined 'expertly' handling an internal rebellion as putting it down in such a way as to avoid 'rousing international outrage' to the point where external forces. But as you then point out, that's exactly what Qadaffi's failed to do. It's not like No-Fly Zones and airstrikes by multinational coalitions in response to dictator brutality are commonplace.

[MKSheppard]

You've defined 'expertly' handling an internal rebellion as putting it down in such a way as to avoid 'rousing international outrage' to the point where external forces. But as you then point out, that's exactly what Qadaffi's failed to do. It's not like No-Fly Zones and airstrikes by multinational coalitions in response to dictator brutality are commonplace.

It took a month to get to this point, despite him murdering wherever possible. I'd say that's handling it as well as it could be handled.

[montypython]

This is because he was so paranoid about military coups, etc that most of his gear was stored in the desert, far away from any population centers. It took him time to get people to run that stuff, and then transport it north where it could be used against the rebels.

If he had had more than just a small apparatus of secret police and praetorian guardsmen, he could have crushed the rebellion in a few days, and we would just be hand-wringing at this point.

Indeed, and that is exactly why why Saddam upgraded his Republican Guard into several army corps even before the Gulf War, and was thus able to suppress open rebellion in every province but Baghdad in barely more then two weeks. I do believe the Syrian Republican Guard is basically the strongest mechanized division ever, Egypt also had a divisional sized Republican Guard but it was simply not loyal enough to be willing to turn on open protests. Contrast Gaddafi basically had one loyal mechanized brigade and some weaker motorized infantry units, and that brigade was clearly deployed defensively around Tripoli during the first week plus of the conflict, its T-72s and 122mm SP howitzers were filmed numerous times scattered about in single vehicle checkpoints each with a weak squad of infantry in support. Once Tripoli was terrorized into submission he appears to have broken up that brigade, supplemented it with mercnaries and armed civilian supports, and sent a reinforced battalion task to attack each of Zawiyah, Misratah and the last one has been driving east towards Benghazi.

I of course do not have highly specific proof of this believe, but all the media reports, reports from the attacked cities and rebels and even film from Gaddafi government broadcasts all support the notion that his numbers are this weak. Shows what modern weapons can do; but then Zawiyah did hold out for two weeks with very little more for weapons then stones and hunting rifles. It was clearly only taken by shelling or burning every occupied building.

In a way I have to respect Saddam more in this case, being crafty enough that it required US boots on the ground to get rid of him, and he still did more for Iraq than qaddafi ever did for Libya.

[Sea Skimmer]

In a way I have to respect Saddam more in this case, being crafty enough that it required US boots on the ground to get rid of him, and he still did more for Iraq than qaddafi ever did for Libya.

Well remember Saddam started the Iran Iraq war almost as soon as he got into power to cement his power and justify a massive expansion of the military that gave the nation an unaffordable debt. That really helps, and while the war was a military disaster simply by surviving Saddam gained a massive prestige. Eight years of Iranian human wave attacks, attacks only ended by rampant use of Iraqi chemical weapons, are a hell of a thing to put a nation through. Even with superior firepower Iraq took roughly 1 million casualties. Then he also survived the Gulf War and our failed air-land campaign (objective was killing the Republic Guard in the field for a reason) which let him mow down everyone in his path and literally transform the landscape to suppress resistance. This all meant Saddam was just way more entrenched in society as Hitler became. Gaddafi is more like a rich playboy of insanity, and while I am be optimistic, I think we will find he really has proportionally few die hard supporters. That doesn't mean people may not continue fighting each other for other reasons, but the claims of rampant tribalism in the country doesn't seem well supported. As long as we really keep ground troops out, its kind of hard to prove to people day after day that they are being invaded.

[MKSheppard]

Gleeeen Greeenwald, Sockpuppeteer finds a new target

Apparently then-candidate OBAMA was asked by a Boston Globe Reporter a question, and the exchange went:

Q. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

OBAMA: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent.

Andy Sulleeevan

There is no actual or imminent threat to America from Libya. I supported Obama against first Clinton and then McCain because I knew full well that both Clinton and McCain were unrepentant fans of presidential war-making powers and had both supported almost every war in their political lives. I wanted someone with more restraint. But the president we supported is not, it is now clear, the president that we have. In the stingingly smug words of uber-partisan Glenn Reynolds:

They told me if I voted for John McCain, we’d be bombing Arab countries while the supporters of the bombing promised that we’d be greeted as liberators. And they were right!

It's just brutal to have supported Obama's foreign policy for so long, only to see it morph into a multilateral version of McCain's so swiftly. The whiplash is jarring.

I dub thee Barack Hussein Walker Bushbama!

[cosmicalstorm]

This is really strange in a way, I was born in the early 80's, and it seems every single US president that have served during my lifetime so far have been involved in a war in the middle east.

[Zinegata]

Andy Sullivan has become increasingly nuts. I know he has a fair bit of Bush remorse because he supported the Iraq war in its opening phases as a Gay Conservative, but after that he just went "Let's never intervene again!"

Anyway, good on the world for voting to intervene in Libya.

[adam_grif]

Can I get some views from the more military minded members here about the efficacy of enforcing a no-fly zone and bombing the Libyan military? Can the rebels actually win without ground intervention, or will they just be fighting to a stalemate?

[Tribun]

Can I get some views from the more military minded members here about the efficacy of enforcing a no-fly zone and bombing the Libyan military? Can the rebels actually win without ground intervention, or will they just be fighting to a stalemate?

While I'm by far no expert, I can say that the Rebels were losing ground because Gaddafi bombed them and used heavy weapons against which the Rebels can't do much. Take away that advantage and he's fucked since his troops are in the minority.

[Tribun]

Here some pictures of the result of the bombing outside of Bengasi:

The pictures

Rebels say that no troops any longer were in sight, so they must've fled. Even on the way to Adschdabija there are no more troops, only burnt-out wrecks and dead bodies.

[salm]

Can I get some views from the more military minded members here about the efficacy of enforcing a no-fly zone and bombing the Libyan military? Can the rebels actually win without ground intervention, or will they just be fighting to a stalemate?

While I'm by far no expert, I can say that the Rebels were losing ground because Gaddafi bombed them and used heavy weapons against which the Rebels can't do much. Take away that advantage and he's fucked since his troops are in the minority.

They´re outnumbered but Gadaffi has real soldiers while the other sides consists largely of insurgents without much training.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Can I get some views from the more military minded members here about the efficacy of enforcing a no-fly zone and bombing the Libyan military? Can the rebels actually win without ground intervention, or will they just be fighting to a stalemate?

Well, it seems that the French, in their enthusiasm to put their shiny new Rafales to use, are bombing the shit out of Gaddafi's mechanized forces. Without his elite family-lead mechanized brigade, Gaddafi really only has infantry and the Libyan Army (and its less-than-enthusiastic loyalty to him) to count on. If it was just a no-fly-zone, he probably crushed the rebellion under a rain of artillery and rocket fire alone (and destroyed just about every city outside of Tripoli in the process,) while grinding the survivors to a paste beneath the treads of his tanks.

Yes, he still has quite a few infantry and a lot of mortars, though hanging around in one spot lobbing mortars into cities will be an open invitation to get pasted by a passing French warplane. But now, if he wants to retake rebel strongholds, he's going to have to do it the old-fashioned way. That is, by vicious house-to-house fighting. That sort of fighting will test the loyalty of his mercenary auxilliaries (though the rebel treatment of captured mercenaries so far will tend to reinforce their loyalty to Gaddafi. A mercenary working for him can either expect to die gloriously fighting the rebels, die from a quick bullet to the head when they fail to fight the rebels gloriously enough, or die from painful torture followed by summary execution when captured by the rebels.)

The odds are a lot more even than they were last week. The question becomes whether the rebels can recover from the one-sided ass-kicking they received at the hands of Gaddafi's heavy armor and retake everything they lost. That, however, assumes that the West is willing to hang around for the few months that this might take. If not, then once again, time may be Gaddafi's friend.

[Jim Raynor]

So apparently some of the Navy's EA-18 Growlers (launched from land bases) have been used. Is this their first combat operation? Also, Harriers from the USS Kearsarge amphib have been used as well.

Last I heard, the Enterprise was in the area. Is there a reason why it hasn't been put to use yet? I would think that it would provide much more capable air power than British jets launched from the UK, or a handful of Marine Harriers.

EDIT: Link

[Sarevok]

I have been looking at pictures of Libyan conflict on the net.

Is it just me or are a lot of the uniformed soldiers in the Rebel side older men ? Some of them look like 40+ hobos except they are holding MANPADs or driving tanks.

It's quite interesting. The uniformless rabble with guns is young men as usual. But the military folks in tanks or using guided weaponry seem like older dudes.

Edit : No disrespect meant to those risking their lives in Libya. I am just curious because soldiers tend to be rather youngish. It would be quite interesting if the more experienced soldiers gravitated towards the rebel side. Rather than merely young hot heads jumping sides at first opportunity.

[montypython]

Can I get some views from the more military minded members here about the efficacy of enforcing a no-fly zone and bombing the Libyan military? Can the rebels actually win without ground intervention, or will they just be fighting to a stalemate?

Well, it seems that the French, in their enthusiasm to put their shiny new Rafales to use, are bombing the shit out of Gaddafi's mechanized forces. Without his elite family-lead mechanized brigade, Gaddafi really only has infantry and the Libyan Army (and its less-than-enthusiastic loyalty to him) to count on. If it was just a no-fly-zone, he probably crushed the rebellion under a rain of artillery and rocket fire alone (and destroyed just about every city outside of Tripoli in the process,) while grinding the survivors to a paste beneath the treads of his tanks.

Yes, he still has quite a few infantry and a lot of mortars, though hanging around in one spot lobbing mortars into cities will be an open invitation to get pasted by a passing French warplane. But now, if he wants to retake rebel strongholds, he's going to have to do it the old-fashioned way. That is, by vicious house-to-house fighting. That sort of fighting will test the loyalty of his mercenary auxilliaries (though the rebel treatment of captured mercenaries so far will tend to reinforce their loyalty to Gaddafi. A mercenary working for him can either expect to die gloriously fighting the rebels, die from a quick bullet to the head when they fail to fight the rebels gloriously enough, or die from painful torture followed by summary execution when captured by the rebels.)

The odds are a lot more even than they were last week. The question becomes whether the rebels can recover from the one-sided ass-kicking they received at the hands of Gaddafi's heavy armor and retake everything they lost. That, however, assumes that the West is willing to hang around for the few months that this might take. If not, then once again, time may be Gaddafi's friend.

The biggest advantages for the rebels is that their manpower pool is larger than qaddafi's, and they are receiving supplies from the Egyptians et al, so the longer things are the better organized and equipped the rebels will be.

[Lonestar]

Last I heard, the Enterprise was in the area. Is there a reason why it hasn't been put to use yet? I would think that it would provide much more capable air power than British jets launched from the UK, or a handful of Marine Harriers.

EDIT: Link

There's actually a US Law(yup) that states that if the US provides more than x amount of the military power to a operation, than the US is mandated to take over the operation. I suspect that Obama doesn't want to take ownership of Libya, and the Enterprise all on it's own would probably provide about the same amount of fighting power as everyone else involved.

[General Zod]

Last I heard, the Enterprise was in the area. Is there a reason why it hasn't been put to use yet? I would think that it would provide much more capable air power than British jets launched from the UK, or a handful of Marine Harriers.

EDIT: Link

There's actually a US Law(yup) that states that if the US provides more than x amount of the military power to a operation, than the US is mandated to take over the operation. I suspect that Obama doesn't want to take ownership of Libya, and the Enterprise all on it's own would probably provide about the same amount of fighting power as everyone else involved.

What kind of idiot thought up that law? It seems like it'd be a bit difficult to enforce it without the cooperation of any other militaries in the region. Are you sure it's not some kind of UN regulation instead?

[Zinegata]

The biggest advantages for the rebels is that their manpower pool is larger than qaddafi's, and they are receiving supplies from the Egyptians et al, so the longer things are the better organized and equipped the rebels will be.

Is Egypt now actively supplying the rebels? I've been wondering if the Egyptian Army was going to get involved.

[Lonestar]

What kind of idiot thought up that law? It seems like it'd be a bit difficult to enforce it without the cooperation of any other militaries in the region. Are you sure it's not some kind of UN regulation instead?

Ink Spots

Here's the catch with U.S. involvement: if we provide troops (in this case planes and naval vessels), command and control of the operation may fall to the U.S. Title X of the U.S. Code dictates that the chain of command for U.S. forces will never deviate from the President to operational commanders. In the 1990s, President Clinton signed Presidential Decision Directive 25, which states that if the U.S. is involved in UN operations, U.S. forces can be placed under the operational command of competent UN force commanders. It also states that as the proportion of U.S. forces in the command increases, it is less likely that U.S. forces would fall under foreign command. At the moment I can't find anything that supersedes this PDD (if our readers do know of anything please post in the comments), so it seems that it is the most liberal document on this topic and can likely be ignored, leaving the default deciding factor as Title X.

Which goes back to possibly Obama not wanting to take ownership of War #3.

EDIT: So not quite "mandated", but still...