Abu Muqawama: Post
Abu Muqawama retains its autonomy and the views and beliefs expressed within the blog do not reflect those of CNAS. Abu Muqawama retains the right to delete comments that include words that incite violence; are predatory, hateful, or intended to intimidate or harass; or degrade people on the basis of gender, race, class, ethnicity, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, or disability. In summary, don't be a jerk.
The Order of Battle
Anthony Shadid, who has seen a war or two, from Libya:
Only days ago, rebels were boldly promising to march on Surt, Colonel Qaddafi’s hometown, then on to Tripoli, where opposition leaders predicted its residents would rise up. But the week has witnessed a series of setbacks, with a punishing government assault on Zawiyah, near the capital, and a reversal of fortunes in towns near Ras Lanuf, whose refinery makes it a strategic economic prize in a country blessed with vast oil reserves.
There was a growing sense among the opposition, echoed by leaders in opposition-held Benghazi and rebels on the front, that they could not single-handedly defeat Colonel Qaddafi’s forces.
“We can’t prevail unless there’s a no-fly zone,” said Anis Mabrouk, a 35-year-old fighter. “Give us the cover, and we’ll go all the way to Tripoli and kill him.”
That seemed unlikely, though. Even without warplanes, Colonel Qaddafi’s government could still marshal far superior tanks, armor and artillery, along with the finances and organization to prosecute a counteroffensive.
I was thinking about these paragraphs on the way into work this morning. It seems to me to be both important and worth noting that if the United States and its allies are to intervene in Libya, simply enforcing a no-fly zone will not be sufficient enough to alter the balance of power in favor of the rebels. (Assuming that this is something in the national interest to do in the first place.) Just going off of field reports as well as a rough order of battle, it seems likely that it would take a more aggressive military intervention to really alter the balance in Libya.* Are the United States and its allies willing to do such a thing? Would that be in our interests?
Meanwhile, in Japan, a few things: the Japanese Foreign Minister has explicitly requested U.S. aid, and the United States has -- correctly, in my opinion -- dispatched warships and humanitarian assistance to our longtime ally. We have no such clear and open invitation to intervene in Libya, though according to Shadid, some rebels are getting frustrated by our inaction:
As each day passes, anger among the rebels grows at what they have described as inaction on the part of the international community and in particular, the United States.
“Obama and Qaddafi are the same!” one fighter, Mohamed Mgaref, shouted at a medical clinic about an hour from the front, as ambulances ferried some of the four dead and dozens wounded in the fighting.
Japan is the world's third-largest economy and a long-time U.S. ally in Asia. Libya, by contrast, is a country of 6.5 million people with the 74th largest economy in the world and roughly 3.3% of the world's proven oil reserves.** So obviously, our interests are far greater in the former than in the latter. But how would it change our calculations if we had a clear and explicit public request from Libya's opposition to intervene militarily?
*This is what is now known as "static, unidimensional analysis" apparently.
**Sources are the CIA World Fact Book and the 2010 BP Statistical Review of World Energy.
UPDATE: In related news, Leon Wieseltier continues to carefully weigh U.S. interests and policy options regarding Libya with his usual humility and respect for both the decisions facing our elected leaders and the uniformed men and women who would carry out a military intervention. One senses that Wieseltier is being appropriately humble about what we could expect military power to achieve in Libya as well as about his own limited understanding of the internal politics of -- Hahahaha, but I kid, I kid.
If anything this calls for
If anything this calls for the Jedi mind fuk jujitsu -- by which I of course mean:
SEND IN THE PIRATES. Shores of Tripoli full circle. I call dibs on Mummars hot britches bodyguards.
And the above bit of irreverrential anal lysius is as serious as anything NYT or WAPO have to say on this matter, or if you like FOX or CNN....
This seems like a strong
This seems like a strong antidote to the Kristof Op-Ed that ran yesterday, which seemed to operate on the principle of "we can, so we should, so we must" in a way that cavalierly avoided the lessons of interventionism in the last decade, in a way that was too ready to be dismissive of Sec. Gates' comments about the risks of Libya while trolling for moral authority to intervene.
Pity that we're not taking
Pity that we're not taking the rare shot at using our military to come across as the good guys in the Middle East.
When they think of the US military, most folk there think of us as bullies - if we're not bombing weddings in Afghanistan we're shooting up family sedans full of kids at checkpoints in Iraq, or raping teenage girls and murdering their families. Not often that a big chunk of the Arab public actually *wants* us to blow some shyte up - and not often that we can get kudos from a lot of folk over there for using our military force.
Not saying we need to go all in and turn this into Iraq 2.0, but it's not that difficult or dangerous for us to shoot down some Libyan gun-ship helicopters or the odd fighter bomber, light up a few armor columns on a desert highway as they move into attack positions, smoke some artillery batteries shelling a contested town, or sink some of those piddly gunboats Gaddhafi's using to bombard his own coastal towns.
If you see the comments on AlJazeera, it's clear that the Arab John and Jane Average sees Gaddhafi as a monster, feels sorry for the Libyan people, and obviously wants somebody to wring Gaddhafi's neck. If we do that, the goodwill we'd get out of doing what we do well is more than anything our clumsy propaganda in the region can ever accomplish.
The ones who'll scream and bleat about it are the ones who're already screaming and bleating - they're so ticked off at us b/c of Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably the Crusades, that nothing we do could get them more ticked off.
Pity that we're not taking
Pity that we're not taking the rare shot at using our military to come across as the good guys in the Middle East.
When they think of the US military, most folk there think of us as bullies - if we're not bombing weddings in Afghanistan we're shooting up family sedans full of kids at checkpoints in Iraq, or raping teenage girls and murdering their parents. Not often that a big chunk of the Arab public actually *wants* us to blow some shyte up - and not often that we can get kudos from a lot of folk over there for using our military force.
Not saying we need to go all in and turn this into Iraq 2.0, but it's not that difficult or dangerous for us to shoot down some Libyan gun-ship helicopters or the odd fighter bomber, light up a few armor columns on a desert highway as they move into attack positions, smoke some artillery batteries shelling a contested town, or sink some of those piddly gunboats Gaddhafi's using to bombard his own coastal towns.
Goodwill we'd get out of doing what we do well is more than anything our clumsy propaganda in the region can ever accomplish.
The ones who'll scream and bleat about it are the ones who're already screaming and bleating - they're lost causes far as the US is concerned, and so ticked off at us b/c of Iraq and Afghanistan, and probably the Crusades, that nothing we do could get them more ticked off.
Kae, "Pity that we're not
Kae,
"Pity that we're not taking the rare shot at using our military to come across as the good guys in the Middle East. "
I give a fck about Savages opinion of us, it's more productive - essential in fact - that they fear us. They "think" what the Iman, newest shiny dictator and Al Jazeera tell them to think. When they think American Army, I want them to think FEAR and that they don't want us within 1000 miles.
And the Cavalier attitude suddenly of the Left and Liberals towards going to war - and war it would be - is so sudden (and ephemeral) - that I will never take anything they say seriously again. Flighty flakes, the "Bird Cage" crowd goes to war. We know what happens when it gets ugly, dearies. At least the Neo-cons, for that matter Rumsfeld stuck to their guns.
I just wanted to thank you
I just wanted to thank you for your consistently thoughtful response to this issue. I completely agree that any intervention should be well thought out and all of the implications accounted for, if we intervene lets do a good job. I do not think that we have reached the point of a no fly zone, I concur with Gates comment yesterday as he left the NATO meeting saying "NATO will only act if there is demonstrable need, a sound legal basis, and strong regional support." However, I believe that our intelligence community, co-operating with and using proxy trainers, should help give the opposition intel, military supplies and training to help them co-ordinate their war with Qaddafi. Once again thanks for your intelligent musings on this matter, I hope that the analysts helping Obama plan his course are as diligent and longsighted as you.
Cant we at least give em some
Cant we at least give em some anti-tank mines?
Speaking strictly to the
Speaking strictly to the military effect of a no fly zone, I think the morale effect of being bombed by aircraft is a very great one, especially when the bombees are inexperienced troops who can't effectively fight back. If those airplanes were kept off the rebels heads the effect upon their fighting effectiveness may be rather greater than expected. The same goes for the dictators gunboats.
The only place a no fly zone really has to be effected is over the front line, such as it is and over Benghazi. Every place in Libya where important fighting can be expected to occur is close to the sea. Because of this, and because of the capabilities of our Aegis ships, we may be able to establish a no fly zone where it is needed without having our aircraft overfly Libya.
Andrew, you ask "how would it
Andrew, you ask "how would it change our calculations if we had a clear and explicit public request from Libya's opposition to intervene militarily". Is Dr Mahmoud Jebril, speaking at the European Parliament in this clip, so hard to understand?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12684597
Andrew.... Japan.............
Andrew....
Japan.............
I have mixed feelings on aid for Japan. It is not like the Japanese can not afford to take care of their country. Japanese have been doing everything they can do to kick the US out of Okinawa.
Philllipinos did the same thing with Clark AFB as the Japanese did with Kadena AFB, cried for the US to go away. After the Volcano took out Clark, the US shut the place down and the Phillipinos cried, " we didn't what you to leave that fast". Those AFB's put a lot of US dollars in foreign countries.
Helping the Japanese would be being a good nieghbor. Not sure I am wild about the open ended offer that Obama gave them. Japanese are proud people, I think they will only ask for what they need.
Libya.............
That is a simple deal. Rebels ask for help...........
Here is our interest........OSB's head on a pole,,,,,, in advance.
Open up a free fire zone with no war damage costs coming to us, zIp up the mouths of the liberal do gooders, get the press the fuck out the way, break out the carpet bombs.............and send Gaddafi to hell.
If you can not do all that , fuck it. I do not want to hear a bunch of whiny ass liberals crying about a bunch of broke eggs. They are in your party Andrew, they are your problem.
You just got that in writing from John Q. Taxpayer........
just to be clear....OSB....is
just to be clear....OSB....is Osama bin Laden.
See, there he/she goes again
See, there he/she goes again with the "............"
There are two types of people who advocated carpet bombing the ME - people who have never seen combat, or people who have seen combat and the experience has left them irrevocably broken. Which is it, visitor? And how exactly are the Libyans supposed to provide us with Osama Bin Laden's "head on a pole?"
Sounds like heat exhaustion - drink water.
We boxed in Qaddafi with this
We boxed in Qaddafi with this ICC nonsense...
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72A24U20110311
Soap, No whiny
Soap,
No whiny liberals......remember.
Getting OBL is their problem.
It is interesting..... The
It is interesting.....
The Libyans are turning on the US cause we are not involved.
Before that they were pissed off cause we might get involved.
You don't pay them enough, they get pissed off.
If you over pay them it is not enough.
You help them out, they think your after their oil.
You pay them for their oil and they think your after their oil.
It there a policy clue here?
About aid for
About aid for Japan..........
Have you noticed that if something happens out side CONUS Haiti, Indonesia, Japan, Chile Obama is quick to give out aid.
Any thing that happens inside CONUS, you hardly get a rise out of Obama. We have had floods and tornados that have cause a lot of suffering for Americans.
Why is that? Some thing is really wrong.
Saif says "We are coming for
Saif says "We are coming for you. .." I do not believe this man will be very magnanimous in victory, and I believe the defenders of Beghazi know that they might as well fight to the death. Saif's supply line will be very long and vulnerable.
I think we must consider the if's and buts about the scenario of standing by and watching him wipe them out as well.
I believe France should lead the "coalition" on this one though, definitely, but we should not lightly dismiss the thought of helping them beat the crap out of a true tyrant.
Not sure what being a liberal
Not sure what being a liberal or conservative has to do w/ the soundness of the idea of using US military force in Libya. It's a good idea on its own merits regardless of the political leanings of whoever is advocating for it.
Fact of the matter is we have a military presence and are frequently involved militarily in the Middle East, and we'll continue to have a military presence and involvement there for the foreseeable future. Which means our lifetimes and (barring oil running out or the development of some viable alternate fuel) the lifetimes of our kids and grandkids.
It's no secret that most of the locals resent our presence and our military actions there. But since we are and will continue to be a kind of roughneck sheriff in that region for a long, long time to come, we might as well use our military might every now and then in doing something that will get a big chunk of the locals cheering for us. Maybe get them thinking that sometimes we really can be good guys. Perhaps if we use some of our gee-whiz high tech weaponry in a semi altruistic fashion once in a while, that'll keep people there from knee jerk resentment of our next four or five interventions in that neck of the woods.
Besides, until this situation cropped up, how many people even dreamed that a day might come when a big chunk of Middle Easterners might one day look at their newscasts and *cheer* video footage of the US Airforce blowing up stuff in their neck of the woods? Opportunities like that are too rare to miss.
Kae..... US thought that we
Kae.....
US thought that we would walk into Iraq, kick Sadam out of power and Iraqi's would cheer.
Problem is, US walks into Libya one side would cheer and the other would not.
Don't think the Middle East politics are that simple. There is Israel.
Conservative/Liberial thing has a lot to do with the expected results. Both want to go in, but have different reasons for doing so. Mix in Israel and it is still a mess for the soundness of the decision.
Really if you get down to it, the US can walk away from the ME anytime we want. There is not rule, law, or anything in this universe that says the US HAS to be involved. US citizens are suckers for a cause.
Visitor - the ones who'll
Visitor - the ones who'll cheer are the majority of Libyans (and probably most Middle Easterners). The ones who don't are ones who are against us no matter what - they were never in play to be won over.
Have a point about the Iraq precedent, but that has more to do w/ the ignorance of the GW Bush crowd than w/ anything else - any reasonable observer of the region at the time would've realized that, Iraqi Kurds (and Israelis) aside, there was no solid support in the region for a US invasion of Iraq/ taking out Saddam.
There is a lot of popular revulsion in the region, though, against Gaddhafi. Means a lot of people will cheer whoever does him dirt. And if that's us, it'll be a massive propaganda coup for US policy in the Middle East.
Another difference from the Iraq debacle is that we don't need to go balls out w/ a massive operation like we did in Iraq - no ground invasion, occupation, or hanging around after the regime falls to tinker w/ nation rebuilding. Just bomb and blow up whichever Gaddhafi supporting forces we manage to spot. Aerial assets for such a limited interdiction campaign are already in place in Italy and whatever carriers we send to that part of the Mediterranean.
"Perhaps if we use some of
"Perhaps if we use some of our gee-whiz high tech weaponry in a semi altruistic fashion.."
Use.Weapons.Altruistic Fashion: [use the preview feature that's a contradiction]
Well it's a fashion alright, what happens when Operation Do something isn't fashionable? And when we can't kill people in an altruistic fashion we'll be denounced hourly on CNN, MSNBC...Admiral WAPO and General NYT will break out their well honed dolchestasse daggers.
And given our energy resources in the US, we don't need to stay there for oil. There may be other reasons, but that's not one of them.
Oh good, we get to risk
Oh good, we get to risk another Stealth fighter. I'm sure no one is interested in upgrading the SA-6 software to get their hands on a F-22, right?
http://www.xairforces.net/newsd.asp?newsid=391&newst=12
[Here's my favorite quote]
"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.”
Why if the Italians want that oil and Gas (and thanks genius for giving MQ they want our oil as motive, oh and no one in those parts remember the Italians, right?) - if that's Italy's motive why pray tell do they pick the underdog, or get involved at all?
I think this blog will
I think this blog will blindly support the adminitration's policies and your cred is swirling the drain.
We think a no fly is insufficient and therefore we will do nothing.
I think that perception is what is vastly important in a revolution and armed intervention by the US, even if no fly only, would help support the rebels. It would set the conditions for an ISR/intel armed drone campaign over Tripoli and that would be a plus. Right now we are weaker than Bosnia, and that's saying something.
It would give hope to future potential revolutionaries elsewhere. THAT is in our interest.
The opportunity is that the POTUS looks ineffectual. We do nothing to help the Iranians, or Libyans, incite the Egyptians.
So we are a weak enemy and a treasonous friend.
It is in the best interest of this country to not look like that.
So, Andrew (and all you
So, Andrew (and all you military readers and posters), is a 'no fly zone' an act of war?
If it is, as I understand it, then the ball is in the court of Congress.
If it isn't, then the POTUS can punt.
I've seen many conflicting opinions. Which is it?
The part of the post
The part of the post measuring strategic significance of Libya by its population size and economic ranking seems bizarrely narrow. The obvious links between all the current uprisings indicates a greater strategic significance for the outcome in Libya. The Arab League call for a No Fly Zone underlines it. What is the strategic significance for the US of all its relationships with the countries now openly advocating action?
BREAKING NEWS In an amazing
BREAKING NEWS
In an amazing joint agreement the Arab League has come together in maximum resolve in a joint decision never seen in the history of Arab nations. Today they anounced their unanimous vote, "We the Arab League, in a forceful and heavily waged battle of resolution decided, some one else like the UN should attack Libya. It was a hard decision to make but there, we said it and stand together to see it done".
Obama, all the US Democrats, Greece, France, Spain, and Ireland said in joint wonder.....yes, some one else can .......yes, someone else can.......yes, someone else can.......pay for our agenda.....the Wisconsin 14 are in awe and honored with olive branchs and rose pedals at their feet......tears well up in their eyes.......never before could we have taken so much from others to preserve our way of life.
What, the Arab League don't want to get all the military hardware they purchased from Russia and the US dirty.
http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/201131365925476865....
Personally, I rather see the cameras focused on the US. I will settle for Japan.
Send in the WIZ14. Maybe they can hide in S. Africa to make Gaddafi give up.
If Obama goes into Libya, he is out in 2012. If Obama does not go into Libya, he is out in 2012.
Future is looking brighter every day. No more years.....
On the Fly, or no fly -
On the Fly, or no fly - Rebels say MQ will kill 500K if he wins. Ummm...yeah. And the EU and Arab League talk, and the protestors/rebels want the League to impose a no fly zone.
and if Natan Sharansky favors it, then practical people should not.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/03/11/AR201103...
Swords do not beat tanks, nor
Swords do not beat tanks, nor are they a suitable weapon for the modern offensive.
Get the rust off the Sword at that, a Western soldier would be punished harshly.
The clerics who egged you onto to slaughter and the FaceBook Twit-idiots share some of the guilt for your blood.
The clerics will also break out their we love Mummar gear and sing his praises every Friday, while your innocents are being raped and slaughtered by his troops.
If there is a next time have a plan and better weapons.
Part of that plan would be to decide if you want Infidel support ahead of time and be able to count on it - counting on it: The Bosnians and Saddam era Iraqis could have warned you against counting on it.
Should the Infidel show up to open Diplomatic relations don't arrest and embarrass them and their Head of State.
Don't wait until you're beat to ask for Help.
The promises of the Arab League, the EU, UN mean nothing. Only the US and UK deliver.
Ask yourself why would we help you.
Know that Assad and the Iranians sent aid and critically - pilots - to help Qaddafi.
If you are men know you are expected to use reason and be accountable.
If faith is an all encompassing system, and in matters of faith the debate and challenges of reason are closed for a thousand years - the result may be losing the ability to reason at all. Which is why you're always gonna lose.
Someone please tell me that
Someone please tell me that 100 Libyan citizens have been given a 10 day course and a few hundred SA-2 strelas.
The things are super cheap and easy to use.
كيف إني أسألك لمزيد من
كيف إني أسألك لمزيد من التفاصيل؟ عظيم آخر في حاجة الى معرفة المزيد...
I do know this isn’t
I do know this isn’t precisely on topic, but i've a web page using the identical program as effectively and i get troubles with my comments displaying. is there a setting i am missing? it’s attainable chances are you'll help me out? thanx.
I wanted to thank you for
I wanted to thank you for this great read!! I definitely enjoying every little bit of it I have you bookmarked to check out new stuff you post.
Sell House Fast
Add your comment