Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

[larry Strong]

It really is quite remarkably repulsive that Western countries were sucking up like crazy to the Col. until just the other day--and are now leaping over each other to condemn him (they all knew what he was like) and demand that he go.

Mark
Ottawa

Very much like all the Hollywood types who now, years after the fact decide to give payments for performances to charity......why did they not do the right thing from the start?????

 

[daftandbarmy]

There has been recent shootdowns of Libyan jets with Syrian pilots. Dont know if its rebel propaganda or not. Gaddafi has the money to buy mercenaries from anywhere.

But mostly from sub-Saharan Africa apparently:

Kickass In Libya

March 6, 2011: In Libya, the Kadaffi clan is desperately trying to suppress an uprising among most of its six million inhabitants. The Kadaffis have found that the most dependable troops can be obtained from the nomadic Tuareg tribes in the southwest, and further southwest through Algeria Mali and Niger. There are about five million Tuareg in these countries, but only about ten percent are in Libya. The most likely recruits are to be found in Mali and Niger, and that's where men from the local Libyan embassy have been offering young men $10,000 to join, and several thousand dollars a week to fight in Libya. This is nothing new for the Tuareg, who have been serving as mercenaries for Kadaffi since the 1970s. But now thousands of them are being hired. Times are hard for the Tuareg in Mali and Niger, where drought, and hostile locals have made life difficult. Kadaffi is offering a large payday for those who join. Even if the Tuareg men don't come back, their families have the $10,000, and whatever else their sons send back. If the Tuareg succeed in putting down the rebellion, Kadaffi will likely reward his Tuareg warriors, as he has in the past.

In Libya, most of the 45,000 man army has either joined the rebels or deserted. The security services (80,000 men of the Revolutionary Guard, Peoples' Militia and secret police) have also suffered desertions. Worse, but these guys are trained to bully and terrorize civilians, not fight a war. Kadaffi desperately needs some kickass fighters who don't mind killing Libyan civilians.

The Tuareg have a lot of experience in the violence department. The Tuareg tribes have, for centuries, had a hostile relationship with their settled neighbors in general, and the peoples to the south in particular. The Tuaregs, who are lighter skinned (they are distant cousins of the ancient Egyptians and Semitic peoples) than the sub-Saharan Africans, speak different languages (again, related to ancient Egyptian, not the Bantu, and other language groups found to the south) and have a different lifestyle.

The sub-Saharan governments, especially in Niger, have played up the racial differences, tagging the Tuareg as evil "whites" and urging the destruction of the hated nomads. The southerners do have a beef, in that the nomadic Tuareg have been raiding the more settled blacks for a long time (like thousands of years.) So the animosity is nothing new.

In addition to work as mercenaries in Libya, there is another new element. Al Qaeda has been hiring Tuareg to help move drugs north. Unlike the more secular Kadaffi, al Qaeda does have some problems with how the Tuaregs practice Islam. The Tuareg take their Islam in a decidedly Tuareg fashion. That is, many ancient religious practices were incorporated into the Tuareg version of Islam. This sort of thing is anathema to al Qaeda, in particular, and Islamic radicals in general. Leave the Tuareg and al Qaeda together long enough, and you can expect some homegrown Tuareg counter-terrorist action. But the Mali government doesn't want to wait, for they know that al Qaeda might get into some local mischief first. And the Western nations don't want al Qaeda to have a sanctuary, not matter how transitory, anywhere on the planet, even in the middle of the desert.

The relations with the local tribes, especially the powerful Tuareg, are complicated. The Tuareg are not fond of Islamic terrorism, but young Tuareg are allowed, by their tribal chiefs, to work with al Qaeda as hired guns. The pay is good, and, so far, not too dangerous. But the young Tuareg are picking up some radical ideas from their al Qaeda bosses, and that is causing some tension with tribal leaders.
The drug smuggling is actually handled by Arab gangsters that are not terrorists. Al Qaeda gets paid lots of money to provide security for the drugs as they make the long run through the Sahara. The Tuareg provide local knowledge of the terrain, and people, at least in the far south.

The Tuareg, like the Somalis and Afghans, are tribal warriors. If led by Tuareg with military training (like those who have long served in the Libyan army), they would be more effective, but not on a par with trained troops. There are over 100,000 Tuareg men through the tribal zone that are potentially willing to take the Libyan offer to fight. But getting these tribesmen to northern Libya, where the fighting is, takes time. Most of the new recruits are being moved by truck, and this can take days. But if Kadaffi can keep the rebels away from his stronghold in Tripoli (in northwest Libya) for a week or so, a substantial force of several thousand armed and loyal Tuareg can be assembled. These mercenaries would prove a difficult force to overcome.

http://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htatrit/articles/20110306.aspx

 

[jollyjacktar]

I believe I heard on the radio coming into work today that there will be a NFZ following Libyan Gov't flattening a town to the east of Tripoli.

 

[MarkOttawa]

USN over-stretched:

F-22s Could Be Assigned To Libyan Operation
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/generic/story_channel.jsp?channel=defense&id=news/awst/2011/03/07/AW_03_07_2011_p28-293410.xml

The Pentagon is generating plans for a no-fly zone over Libya—plans that could produce the first combat assignment for the F-22 Raptor stealth fighter.

Whether the idea progresses beyond this stage is subject to United Nations and NATO support, the scale of Libyan military action against its civilians, and the reluctance of the U.S. to take on stewardship of military operations in yet another Muslim country. Nonetheless, the idea does show how the U.S. Air Force confronts the task of taking down a large air defense system.

The Lockheed Martin F-22, F-16CJ Wild Weasels and some cyberoperations would be employed in shutting down Libya’s air defense system, which consists “almost exclusively” of Russian-built SA-6 surface-to-air missile (SAM)systems. The munitions are similar to those that opposed NATO forces involved in operations in Serbia and that shot down the single F-117 fighter lost in combat, says a former Air Force chief of staff.

While the SA-6 Gainful (2K12 Kub) is the most effective SAM in the Libyan inventory, others include the SA-2 Guideline (S-75), SA-3 Goa (S-125) and SA-5 Gammon (S-200).

U.S. aircraft carriers are moving to the western Mediterranean, but operations in Afghanistan may not permit them to maintain a long-term no-fly zone over Libya. That task would likely fall to the Air Force, says a senior USAF official.

“Creating and enforcing a leak-proof no-fly zone over Libya can be done without stretching U.S. forces,” the veteran fighter pilot says. “The Air Force has the capacity to do this without seriously affecting its missions in Afghanistan. There is no air superiority problem in Iraq or Afghanistan that requires more fighters and AWACS [Airborne Warning and Control Systems], than [those] already committed [to that mission].”..

Basing could be an issue. “Obviously it would be desirable to operate from bases in Italy,” the former Air Force chief of staff says. “Italy would likely allow us to use its bases because of [its] vested commitment to [maintaining] access to Libyan oil and gas.”

A worst-case scenario, with NATO rejecting support of a no-fly zone, might have shorter-range U.S. fighters flying out of Egypt, using facilities like Cairo West where multi-national Bright Star exercises are conducted...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

The key, gruesome, question is at the end of this quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/08/AR2011030805868_3.html?sid=ST2011030805453

…
“A no-fly zone is the robust man’s option,” one administration official said. “But what is it going to do to the balance of power in Libya?” With the Libyan government’s assault concentrated on ground rather than air power, “it doesn’t change it internally so it favors the rebels. It doesn’t do much humanitarian good.”

“It makes us feel good,” the official said, and has some symbolic value in potentially frightening Gaddafi into giving up. “But what . . . if it doesn’t work? Are you prepared to take the next step? We haven’t had that debate yet, in part because we thought it was going to happen really quickly.”

NATO maintained a no-fly zone over the disputed province of Kosovo for three years, while numerous atrocities occurred below, before sending its bombers to Serbia. In Libya, an imminent humanitarian catastrophe would be the best legal basis, short of a U.N. resolution, for a no-fly zone or other intervention, U.S. and European officials said. But such judgments are inherently subjective, said one official.

“This is the question,” he said. “How many people being killed constitutes sufficient grounds?”

Nowhere near enough so far, in my view. Also relevant:

Libya’s helicopter forces are greatest threat, U.S. Marine chief says
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/08/senate.hearing.libya/

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

“How many people being killed constitutes sufficient grounds?”

When did people getting killed ever count for anything? How many million black Africans have been killed in Congo, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and so on in the past few years? That doesn't count as "grounds" for anything. The only "grounds' for intervention in Libya are: vital interests and, in Libya, vital interests = oil for Europe.

Let's have no hand wringing about the deaths if innocents being "grounds" for anything; that's rank hypocrisy.

If we're going to intervene in Libya - send Western sailors, soldiers and air force people into harm's way - then let's be honest about the only good reason for doing that: our national self-interest. If our, Canadian, nation self interest includes supporting our allies in a Libyan intervention then so be it, but we must not risk our, Canadian, lives and treasure just become some innocent civilians are being slaughtered - we've never done so in the past and this would be a bloody poor time and place to start.

 

[MarkOttawa]

we've never done so in the past

Actually we did in Kosovo in 1999, without in fact any good reason.  And Chretien had his Congo bungle in the jungle--except the problem was solved before we could actually do anything.  Then there was Somalia...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jed]

Actually we did in Kosovo in 1999, without in fact any good reason.  And Chretien had his Congo bungle in the jungle--except the problem was solved before we could actually do anything.  Then there was Somalia...

Mark
Ottawa

Each one of these interactions did not do anything for Canadian National interest, and in fact, probably brought on some portion of discredit to us, as a Nation.

 

[GAP]

“How many people being killed constitutes sufficient grounds?”

When did people getting killed ever count for anything? How many million black Africans have been killed in Congo, Liberia, Cote d'Ivoire and so on in the past few years? That doesn't count as "grounds" for anything. The only "grounds' for intervention in Libya are: vital interests and, in Libya, vital interests = oil for Europe.

Let's have no hand wringing about the deaths if innocents being "grounds" for anything; that's rank hypocrisy.

If we're going to intervene in Libya - send Western sailors, soldiers and air force people into harm's way - then let's be honest about the only good reason for doing that: our national self-interest. If our, Canadian, nation self interest includes supporting our allies in a Libyan intervention then so be it, but we must not risk our, Canadian, lives and treasure just become some innocent civilians are being slaughtered - we've never done so in the past and this would be a bloody poor time and place to start.

I don't see Italy, nor France....the two major recipients of Libyan oil even on the scene, let alone leading the charge to change the regime..... in addition to which, I also notice the total lack of discussion by the potential replacement government regarding anything at all about keeping the contracts Gadhafi bargined for...valid...change of government....all bets are off...

 

[MarkOttawa]

No USN carrier for Libya for now:

No Sale on Libyan No Fly Zone -- So Far
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a3ea1416a-86d8-48f4-a400-d44e0509902a

The heads of the U.S. Navy and Marine Corps confirmed today (March 8) that two Navy amphibious warfare ships with a Marine Expeditionary Unit (MEU) are being stationed in the Mediterranean Sea close enough to Libya to take action if ordered by the White House.

Gen. James Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, said 400 Marines of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment have joined troops of the 26th MEU aboard the U.S.S. Kearsarge (LHD3) and the U.S.S. Ponce (LPD15). But he and Adm. Gary Roughead, the chief of naval operations, said there were no immediate plans for U.S. Intervention in the Libyan crisis.

Photo: USS Kearsarge Website
http://www.kearsarge.navy.mil/Site%20Pages/Ship%20Photos.aspx

Replying to questions from the Senate Armed Services Committee, Amos said the ships are equipped with AV-8A Harrier jump jets, attack and cargo helicopters, including V-22 Osprey til- rotor helos, and landing craft.

Roughead added that the vessels are equipped with missiles that can strike land targets, as well as medical teams and operating room facilities,

The ships and Marines are equipped to handle everything from “a raid, amphibious assault to non-combat evacuation,” Amos said.

But both commanders were reluctant to say it would be relatively easy to impose a No Fly Zone over Libya.

Sen. John McCain of Arizona, the senior Republican on the committee got Amos to acknowledge Libyan strongman Muammar Qaddafi's air defenses are “modest.” The top Marine said the “greatest threat” was probably Libyan helicopters. McCain, along with Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.), has been advocating imposition of a no-fly zone to prevent Qaddafi's forces from attacking rebels and aircraft in the eastern part of the country. The air attacks have blunted advances by rebels seeking to topple Qaddafi, who has ruled Libya for more than 40 years.

McCain prodded Amos into confirming that Qaddafi's air defense systems were mostly older Soviet-style surface-to-air missiles, concentrated at four air bases in and around the Libyan capital of Tripoli.

But Amos said success for the warring Libyan parties relies on more than simply controlling the airspace. “I think it's more than aviation. It's complicated,” Amos said.

“No one is saying a No Fly Zone is uncomplicated,” Lieberman conceded during his turn questioning the Navy and Marine Corps leaders.

Roughead said there has been no military-to-military communication between the U.S. and the Libyan rebels. He added that the aircraft aboard the Kearsarge and Ponce do not have the electronic warfare (EW) technology, like the EA 6B Prowler, that can jam Libyan air defense systems. The closest ship with EW-equipped aircraft is the carrier U.S.S. Enterprise currently in the Red Sea. Roughead said there are no plans to shift the Big E to the Mediterranean [emphasis added].

He told Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.) that “entering into combat operations*” would be a precursor to any No Fly Zone because it would be necessary to suppress or destroy any air defense or radar warning systems...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

Good piece by UK Chief of the General Staff, 2006-2009

Libya: A no-fly zone is no way to deal with Libya
Britain should steer clear of another military intervention in the Middle East , writes Richard Dannatt.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8371987/Libya-A-no-fly-zone-is-no-way-to-deal-with-Libya.html

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Edward Campbell]

Each one of these interactions did not do anything for Canadian National interest, and in fact, probably brought on some portion of discredit to us, as a Nation.

In each of the cases Mark cited the government of the day perceived the action to be in the national (or the government's political) interest. I recall the "bungle in the jungle" (2003) Prime Minister Chretien was scurrying around trying to find UN "missions" for Canada in Africa. Sadly, actually maybe happily, Chretien did not have the political capital to carry the thing off and all we are left with is an image of Gen Baril, briefcase in hand, walking forlornly down a rural road - looking for a mission, I presume.

 

[Old Sweat]

In each of the cases Mark cited the government of the day perceived the action to be in the national (or the government's political) interest. I recall the "bungle in the jungle" (2003) Prime Minister Chretien was scurrying around trying to find UN "missions" for Canada in Africa. Sadly, actually maybe happily, Chretien did not have the political capital to carry the thing off and all we are left with is an image of Gen Baril, briefcase in hand, walking forlornly down a rural road - looking for a mission, I presume.

And the late Colonel Strome Galloway (ret) of The RCR in a letter to the editor describing a picture in the Ottawa Citizen of Baril, LGen Roy and BGen Cox shambling along in combat clothing as "looking more like a cook house detail than a group of senior officers."

In my opinion, this is the time for prudence, not "feel good" reactions. There are more important issues to grasp our attention, most of which, I fear, have yet to arise.

 

[MarkOttawa]

More from AW&ST:

Libyan Air Defenses Would Fade Fast
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog:27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post:b5d2af1a-9b89-40d6-acb6-ee7a623098a0&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Mark
Ottawa

 

[kstart]

I don't see Italy, nor France....the two major recipients of Libyan oil even on the scene, let alone leading the charge to change the regime..... in addition to which, I also notice the total lack of discussion by the potential replacement government regarding anything at all about keeping the contracts Gadhafi bargined for...valid...change of government....all bets are off...

I suspect this is a key factor. 

Gadhafi had plans to Nationalize foreign oil in Libya:  http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110131/gadhafi-threatened-nationalizing-petro-canada-110131/

Bad investment with a nutty dictator and regime, the slightest slight and he's on a tyrade.

It seems political, the 'provisional government' (which is still just a council?) may be ambivalent about securing those deals with foreign investors, it looks like it could be the internal politics and optics of appealing to Western countries, and their foreign investment interests.  This seems to be a self-lead pro-democracy movement, power for the people, I don't think they want to give power away to the West to have over them. . .?  But there seem to be competing reports, some say yes, help us, some say, no, stay away?  Without that unification of voice, it might result in UN/Nato stepping back. . .?

But here they are also mobilized to act, so is it a wait for a unified rebel/pro-democracy voice. . .?

 

[MarkOttawa]

But not in the Med.:

Navy keeping two carriers in Middle East for most of year
http://www.stripes.com/news/navy-keeping-two-carriers-in-middle-east-for-most-of-year-1.137137

The Navy has increased its Middle East presence by positioning two aircraft carriers there simultaneously for at least nine months a year for the foreseeable future, military officials said earlier this month.

The need for an additional carrier arose from requirements for combat air support for the surge of troops into Afghanistan, coupled with the need for tactical air support for U.S. forces in Iraq and the U.S. commitment to the Iraqi government to maintain air superiority until the Iraqi air force can take over, said Lt. Col. Mike Lawhorn, a spokesman for U.S. Central Command.

“We had these three needs come up relatively close to one another, and the way it was determined to meet the needs was to put another carrier” in the region, he said.

Two carriers, the USS Carl Vinson and USS Enterprise, have been in the region since early and mid-February, respectively, supporting missions in Afghanistan and Iraq. The Enterprise is in the Red Sea supporting maritime security operations, said Lt. Frederick Martin, a 5th Fleet spokesman in Bahrain. The Vinson replaced the USS Abraham Lincoln, which had been solo in the Middle East region.

But dedicating carrier-based aircraft for Iraq missions is a misuse of strained naval assets, said Loren Thompson, a defense industry consultant and member of the libertarian Lexington Institute think tank.

“There is little need to support America’s shrinking military role in Iraq with sea-based aviation,” Thompson said. “The United States has access to air bases in Kuwait, Turkey and other nearby nations that would make reliance on aircraft carriers a misuse of scarce assets.”

Of the Navy’s 288 ships [emphasis added], 118 currently are deployed. Five of the Navy’s 11 aircraft carriers are deployed or conducting sea trials in preparation for deployments...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[CougarKing]

France recognizes the rebel government, giving them further llegitimacy:


link

France became the first country to formally recognize Libya's newly created interim governing council Thursday, saying it plans to exchange ambassadors with the opposition group trying to oust longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi.

People in the eastern city of Benghazi, where the rebel council is based, honked and cheered to celebrate the announcement, Reuters reported.

"It breaks the ice," said Mustafa Gheriani, an opposition spokesman. "We expect Italy to do it, and we expect England to do it."

France's announcement comes as NATO defence ministers gathered in Brussels, where they will discuss the growing crisis in the north African nation.

Both sides in Libya are lobbying for support from Western countries as their leaders debate whether to protect the rebels from Gadhafi's air force by putting a no-fly zone over some or all of the country. Britain and France have backed the rebels' calls for a no-fly zone, but the U.S. Obama administration has expressed deep reservations about involvement in another conflict in the greater Middle East.

Gadhafi has vowed to fight any attempt to impose a no-fly zone on the north African nation.

Ahead of Thursday's meeting, NATO said it had started round-the-clock surveillance of the air space over Libya, and British Foreign Secretary William Hague said a meeting of EU foreign ministers would discuss how to isolate the regime.

Meanwhile, Germany said it froze billions in assets of the Libyan Central Bank and other state-run agencies. The U.S., U.K., Canada other countries have also frozen Gadhafi's assets.

"The international assets that are being frozen does make a difference for the money that's out of the country," CBC's Adrienne Arsenault said from the capital of Tripoli. "But it's also important to remember that Gadhafi has amazing reserves of cash within this country.

"He can last for quite some time while the international community continues to debate what it's going to do."

Clashes in Ras Lanouf
Arsenault noted there were reports of ongoing clashes between Gadhafi loyalists and rebel forces over the Mediterranean oil port of Ras Lanouf.

"The government is intent on saying it has not lost control of the oil," she said, noting there is speculation that the government will ramp up its efforts to seize and maintain control of valuable oil facilities.

Rebel fighters load ammunition into an anti-aircraft machine-gun as Libyan air force fighter jets fly overhead of Ras Lanuf on March 8. (Roberto Schmidt/AFP/Getty).Rebel forces beat a retreat from the strategic oil port on Thursday, heading back to opposition territory in the east as Gadhafi's army pounded the town with artillery, The Associated Press reported.

One opposition fighter said government forces were raining rockets or tank shells on the city in what appeared to be preparation for a full-scale advance.

Shells hit a series of buildings as Gadhafi's tanks moved further along Libya's main Mediterranean coastal road than they have been since the rebels seized most of the country's east.

The main hospital in Ras Lanour was hit by artillery or airstrikes, opposition forces said, prompting rebel forces to move staff and patients to nearby towns. Gebril Hewada, a doctor on the opposition's health committee in the main eastern city of Benghazi, said no staffers were hurt, but he didn't know about patients.

In the west, Gadhafi claimed victory in recapturing Zawiya, the city closest to the capital that had fallen into opposition hands.
Arsenault said there were reports of continued clashes in the city Thursday and noted that the reports of government control of Zawiya are in dispute.

Casualties rising
Meanwhile, the president of the international Red Cross said doctors are seeing a dramatic rise in the number of casualties in Libya, including many civilian deaths.

Jakob Kellenberger said Thursday in Geneva that local doctors over the past few days saw "a sharp increase in the number of casualties arriving at hospitals in Ajdabiya and Misrata," where there has been heavy fighting and airstrikes.

His comments come after Gadhafi accused Western media of overblowing the number of casualties during the uprising, which aims to oust the longtime Libyan leader.

Kellenberger said that in Misrata, 40 patients were treated for serious injuries and 22 dead were taken there. He said the Red Cross surgical team in Ajdabiya operated on 55 wounded this past week and "civilians are bearing the brunt of the violence."

The aid organization is cut off from access in western areas including Tripoli, said Kellenberger, but he believes those are "even more severely affected by the fighting" than eastern rebel-held territories.

The UN estimates more than 200,000 people have fled Libya to escape the violence.

Pro-democracy demonstrations have been pushing for change since mid-February. Gadhafi, who has been in power since 1969, has consistently rejected calls to step aside and has blamed al-Qaeda and Western infiltrators for the unrest in Libya.

 

[MarkOttawa]

LewMac:

Libya would never be just a no-fly zone (usual copyright disclaimer)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/Somnia/article1935668/

...
A much better comparison could be made with the inaccurately labelled no-fly zone imposed by NATO over Serbia during Kosovo’s attempt to break away in 1999. Inaccurate, because the intervention went well beyond closing the airspace over Serbia to all but NATO aircraft. It started with the targeting of Serbia’s air defences but quickly escalated to an all-out bombing campaign – initially against military and security targets, then adding strategic targets such as oil refineries and major bridges.

NATO made daily claims that civilian targets weren’t included. But I visited a number of apartment buildings that had been destroyed (along with many of their occupants), none of which were within 50 kilometres of a military or strategic target. Was this the intent during the opening stages of the bombing campaign? I certainly hope not. But once you decide to militarily intervene in another country’s civil conflict, you have to be prepared to escalate even if it’s the wrong thing to do, because quitting your commitment when the initial plan fails is just not on.

Odds are, the same scenario would unfold in Libya if a no-fly zone were enforced. Unfortunately, Col. Gadhafi doesn’t need his air force to prevail, so its grounding or destruction would merely shift the fighting to the backs of his army...

...countries enforcing any no-fly zone would be unable to ignore the carnage below them. Backed into a corner, their political leaders would be forced to escalate and authorize attacks against the Libyan army – thereby becoming, in effect, the opposition’s air force. By so doing, they would assume a much larger role in Libya’s future, including reconstruction of the damage they inflicted.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m no fan of Col. Gadhafi. But I’m also no fan of political decisions driven by well-meaning military undertakings with the naive belief they will be short term and successful. As the saying goes, “In for a penny, in for a pound.”

Retired major-general Lewis MacKenzie was the first commander of UN peacekeeping forces in Sarajevo.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[tomahawk6]

France runs the risk of losing access to Libyan oil if Gaddafi holds on to power - and its clear the rebels are on the ropes. If NATO puts up a no fly zone, that is the only thing that would save the rebels. A likely result is Gaddafi holding power in the west and the rebels holding the eastern part of the country. Of course a wild card would be the Egyptian Army moving into Libya to make Libya part of Egypt - there is precedent for that.

 

[GAP]

That has all kinds of unsavory implications.....