Repman Posted March 17, 2011 Share Posted March 17, 2011 You're kidding me, right? If the West wants the rebels to win, they will. But at what cost to PR?The west isn't sending ground troops. All of those military units who didn't turn in the first wave but were on the fence are now firmly back with the Government. You know how hard it is to hit a helicopter with a Jet? What happens when the west starts hitting civilian targets? Especially when Libyan forces restrict their movement to mostly popular areas. The war is already over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Galactus Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Just like Kosovo was over? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 You know how hard it is to hit a helicopter with a Jet? Pretty easy, I would imagine. They have to land at some point, right? Certainly the west will be able to protect Benghazi with relative ease. The problem is where to go from there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Repman Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Just like Kosovo was over?You realize the west had to send scores of ground troops to "end" the war. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 The west isn't sending ground troops. God, I hope not, but Egypt has.All of those military units who didn't turn in the first wave but were on the fence are now firmly back with the Government. How do you know this? And if so, how permanent is it?You know how hard it is to hit a helicopter with a Jet? Yes I do. Not very unless they're constantly hiding. Which is also a win. And it's not like France and Britain don't have helicopters.What happens when the west starts hitting civilian targets? Especially when Libyan forces restrict their movement to mostly popular areas. Thus my PR concerns and why they US should hang back if possible. EU and especially Arab nations will get more leeway if this comes to pass. Which I do not think it will.The war is already over.Can't argue with that. I just disagree on the eventual victor. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Padraig Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 You realize the west had to send scores of ground troops to "end" the war.This resolution wouldn't defeat Gaddafi in itself. But the main object is to stop his advance. And hard to see why it shouldn't. You are talking about hitting civilian areas but civilian areas are rebel supporters, so its not a huge concern. I don't expect them to be attacking Tripoli after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gladius Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Just like Kosovo was over?apples and orangesKosovo had an overwhelming majority that wanted independence, the rebels in Libya are 50 : 50 at best.Not to mention that Kosovo has become a safe haven for organized crime. A grat succes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 It is extremely difficult to have accurate close air support without ground controllers. And even then it is extremely difficult to have effective fixed-wing support in urban environments. So if loyalist troops manage to close in on Benghaz, it is going to be difficult to hit them. And obviously, the risk of civilian casualties increases as well.The no-fly part of this is easy. But you can bet that the libyan tanks and artillery will stay in poulated areas where possible, move in convoys that include civilian vehicles, etc. And my guess is that orders for the coalition air strikes will be to avoid civilian casualties at all costs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Sorry for the typos - damn Blackberry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max the Mostly Mediocre Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Well, Daffy wants a ceasefire now. Guess the war is over. If we want it to be. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cantabile Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Was completely not expecting this. I had given up on the rebels winning, and been rather depressed about it the past few days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tzanth Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Well, Daffy wants a ceasefire now. Guess the war is over. If we want it to be. We'll see.So.... victory is ours? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 A ceasefire in place means that Gaddhafi controls the vast majority of the country. Will whomever supplies the planes to enforce the no fly zone be willing to keep those forces on station indefinitely? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 A ceasefire in place means that Gaddhafi controls the vast majority of the country. Will whomever supplies the planes to enforce the no fly zone be willing to keep those forces on station indefinitely?As France and Britain have Aircraft Carriers* and Libya has a ton of coast, why not?*OK, France has one and Britain has light carriers, but still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Because those ships can't sit there indefinitely. Ships get rotated, need refueling, etc. They simply don't remain on station indefinitely. The USN has better resupply/replacement capability, but we're not going to keep a carrier there permanently. To avoid casualties, you'll want overwhelming force. And again, that means keeping assets ready to go. It'll be much easier for Gaddhafi to redeploy more quickly.Or, we may have just created a permanent client state in eastern Libya. Great. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord O' Bones Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 we're not going to keep a carrier there permanently. Do we not already? We have ten of them, and I'm pretty sure one is 5th Fleet at all times.ETA: Sorry, 6th Fleet now. Damn I'm middle aged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrueMetis Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 As France and Britain have Aircraft Carriers* and Libya has a ton of coast, why not?*OK, France has one and Britain has light carriers, but still.Bloody Americans and their over sized aircraft carriers. :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Former Lord of Winterfell Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Carriers do not stay at sea permanently. They train, get shore tours, refit, etc. Usually, there is one at sea for every two that aren't. That means it would take three to keep one on station by Libya at all times.the problem is that the NFZ at this point may onlu be enough to help the rebels survive, not win. And that suggests a longer-term commitment to preserve the weak rebel position.if we were going to do this, the time to do it was at least a week ago. Maybe, hopefully, it can still work out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cantabile Posted March 18, 2011 Share Posted March 18, 2011 Whatever happened to ninjas and assassinations and all that good stuff? Some cyanide in Gaddafi's nesquik would make all of this so much simpler. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Horza Posted March 18, 2011 Author Share Posted March 18, 2011 I suspect there'll end up being some kind of unofficial ground presence, not least because as FLOW says they'll need it for accurate strikes. TF777 anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.