Middle East Uprising thread 7

[Shryke]

He has his supporters though... apparently enough of them that he can win a war against the rebels if they aren't given any help. It doesn't seem as cut and dried as small leadership party oppresses vast majority. If it were the old bastard wouldn't have stood a chance to begin with once the ball got rolling. There are clearly two reasonably strong factions here, and I think its unlikely the pro-Ghadaffi folks go quietly, or that the rebels are as magnanimous in victory as we're expecting them to be. They might kill the shit out of the loyalists and then we are going to look like dumbasses.

Gaddafi, I believe, is supported mostly just by his tribe and mercenaries. Even in Tripoli there's lots of people against him it's just he's violently crushed them twice now so they are currently laying low. It's not as clear cut as 2 even sides here. Gaddafi has, I believe, less people but he's got more money and better trained fighters.

And a counter-purge of Gaddafi loyalists is certainly possible. A purge by Gaddafi is practically a certainty. You kinda gotta balance one against the other here. I don't see how we'd end up looking like "dumbasses".

Do we always have to provide the muscle? Are we the bouncers of the world? Surely there are some steps we could take that don't involve commitment to a 3rd concurrent middle eastern conflict. Right now we're apparently in the lead role with a bit of indecision on the part of the international community on who will take over, whether that should be NATO or another country forming an independent coalition. No surprise that nobody else wants seems to want it.

Either way, I'm sure the Brits and the French could have things well in hand with only a few words of presidential encouragement from this side of the pond. Not like we needed even more enemies in the Islamic world.

No, you don't always have to provide the muscle and in this case, they could probably get along just fine without you. But as I said, allies are going with it and there's UN resolution and all that so the US is helping out. With, supposedly, the intention of doing as little as possible which is for the best all around I'd think. A NATO operation would probably include the US anyway.

I don't get the shock here. The US has been the "world's bouncer" for decades now. They've got some level of involvement in most shit like this.

I'm not seeing good planning this round either, the West can't even figure out who is in charge. Besides that, we have no idea what is in store post-Ghadaffi. It doesn't seem to me that the rebels are all that organized. What do they have in mind politically, post-Ghadaffi? Does anyone have the slightest idea? Are they cohesive in that vision or will they splinter once the battle is won? Are they strong enough to provide stability once the central gov't is overthrown? We don't know any of this, and now that we've stuck our fingers in the pie we've earned a share of the mess. Would not be at all surprised to see NATO troops on the ground in Libya.

We might see peacekeepers on the ground as things settle down post-Gaddafi, but I don't think that's necessarily a huge deal.

As for government post-Gaddafi, the east of the country already seems to be running itself to some extent so it may work.

I agree with you. This mentality that many people have that any injustice in the world needs to be solved by the United States drives me insane. We are not a global police force out to fight all bad guys. I am sure other nations could handle this perfectly without our help.

See, this attitude that talking about this we obviously must be demanding that the US do it and no one else help is just silly considering no one is actually saying this at all. Quite frankly, no one is asking you to fight all bad guys. At most here, people are asking some support and help when allies are fighting a specific bad guy.

[Lord Godric]

See' date=' this attitude that talking about this we obviously must be demanding that the US do it and no one else help is just silly considering no one is actually saying this at all. Quite frankly, no one is asking you to fight all bad guys. At most here, people are asking some support and help when allies are fighting a specific bad guy.

[/quote']

And if that was all that was expected of the US, support via fuel or other supplies, then I would have no problem. But already the US has taken the lead role on this operation, the US has already fired missiles into Libya. It is expected that the US do this, and that is the mentality I am talking about. The United States could give support without actually having to be in charge and directly engage "the enemy."

[snake]

As for government post-Gaddafi, the east of the country already seems to be running itself to some extent so it may work.

Really? I haven't read anything with regards to that. Not saying it isn't true mind you. However, their fighting force is laughable. They are in complete disarray. This is not the western coalition of Afghanistan, which was a battle hardened group who had fought the Taliban for years. This is a poorly equipped, untrained bunch of civilians who don't have a clue as to what they're doing. Without more direct support this civil war could go on for a long time.

I wonder how long we're willing to commit and how far are we actually willing to go.

[Horza]

Really? I haven't read anything with regards to that. Not saying it isn't true mind you. However, their fighting force is laughable. They are in complete disarray. This is not the western coalition of Afghanistan, which was a battle hardened group who had fought the Taliban for years. This is a poorly equipped, untrained bunch of civilians who don't have a clue as to what they're doing. Without more direct support this civil war could go on for a long time.

I wonder how long we're willing to commit and how far are we actually willing to go.

Stratfor says the same thing. (FWIW)

[ThinkerX]

Given past US 'involvment' in the region, I have severe doubts about the rebels being all that much better than Gadaffi.

line from that old old song keep echoing through my brain when I hear all the positive spin about the rebels:

`...from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli...'

That region has a long history of lawlessness and banditry, covered with a religious veneer.

And at one time, Bin Laden was the 'friend' of the US too...

[sToNED_CAT]

Pretty sure those wars were started out of US national interest and had fuck all to do with any altruistic concerns, and the tarnished international reputation is the risk you take. This conflict is rather more comparable with Kosovo or Sierra Leone.

Kosovo was one of the most unjust wars US ever fought. More than Iraq and certainly more than Afghanistan.

[MinDonner]

US plane crash-lands in Libya.

Apparently "there was no indication that the F-15 Eagle was brought down by hostile fire". Not sure whether that's a good or bad thing; if not hostile fire, then what? Incompetent pilot? Dodgy equipment?

[The Iceman of the North]

US plane crash-lands in Libya.

Apparently "there was no indication that the F-15 Eagle was brought down by hostile fire". Not sure whether that's a good or bad thing; if not hostile fire, then what? Incompetent pilot? Dodgy equipment?

Eh, these planes go down by themselves on a regular basis. Could be a minor malfunction or pilot error, but at the speed these fly, that could be enough.

[CelticBrennus]

Kosovo was one of the most unjust wars US ever fought. More than Iraq and certainly more than Afghanistan.

Because clearly if anyone deserved the benefit of the doubt then it was Serbia, its not like they had just spent some time raping, murdering and ethnically cleaning, their way across Bosnia and Croatia. It was better to do something then wait for another Srebrenica to take place

[ljkeane]

Both pilots (the pilot and his assistant?) have apparently been rescued.

[Altherion]

Because clearly if anyone deserved the benefit of the doubt then it was Serbia, its not like they had just spent some time raping, murdering and ethnically cleaning, their way across Bosnia and Croatia.

There is no denying that the war going on in the former Yugoslavia was brutal, but Serbia was hardly the only perpetrator of atrocities. The West chose a side, bombed the opposing side into submission and used the "international courts" to prosecute the losers and acquit its allies. They then gave money to the losers contingent on them behaving more or less as ordered. What surprises me is how much of their population they've managed to convince of their version of the story -- and this despite the relatively free media. Of course, outsiders were not convinced (Russia outright laughed at this propaganda in 2008).

Libya is different though -- the rebels did not have the power to do much harm to Gaddafi's loyalists and would have almost certainly been crushed by the latter if the West did not intervene.

[The Iceman of the North]

The West chose a side, bombed the opposing side into submission and used the "international courts" to prosecute the losers and acquit its allies.

What world do you live in?

ETA: Who were these allies that were acquitted?

[Padraig]

A few comments:

1) The popularity of the Libyan regime. All the cities in (at least the north of) Libya were taken over by the opposition except for Tripoli and Sirte. They have only been re-claimed by Gaddafi after a brutal crackdown. Tripoli also tried to come out against Gaddafi but any protests were stamped on.

Now there has been people demonstrating in support of him in Tripoli but you can't say how reflective that is of the mood of the people. It would be silly to say that he has no support but it would be equally silly to say he has passionate, largescale supporters. We just don't know for sure. Its a police state, so I find it very unlikely he has huge support.

Mubarak also had "supporters" but nobody cared that much when he went. The Northern Alliance in Afghanistan had very small amount of support in comparison, except for their powerbase.

2) Even if the US were only supporting vocally and committed no forces, I don't think the US would be untarnished. People would just be saying that France and the UK are doing the US's bidding (whether it was right or wrong). The only way the US would not be tied together with its allies if it condemned France and the UK.

3) The plan. There is a huge amount of uncertainty about the future in Libya. But I don't believe there is a requirement to know how things will end before you intervene. You are never going to know how things would end. If you waited until you did, you'd be trapped under a permanent cloud of indecision.

4) France and the UK could not be as effective without US support. I'm not sure about the abandoning your allies theory.

Kosovo was one of the most unjust wars US ever fought.

And that's just rubbish.

[Kouran]

Both pilots (the pilot and his assistant?) have apparently been rescued.

Typicaly it's a pilot and an electronic warfare officer (EWO). The EWO usually handles all of the radio's, radar, jamming, and targeting. The pilot already has far to much to do to handle everything efficiently by themselves.

From what I heard on the news this morning they had a mechanical failure. Like Iceman said up thread any thing goes wrong at high speed and low altitude you probably dont have a great deal of time to correct a problem. Most planes have backup systems for most functions, but lets say you lose hydraulics at 400 knots at 200ft elevation, you are traveling 666ft per sec so even a fraction of a second will kill you.