No Fly zones over Libya?

[dudalb]

Yep, including the French and the Italians. Has Obama been reading dudalb's posts on JREF again or was this already on the cards when dudalb posted his comment?

I'd support patrols of Libyan airspace if it stops Gaddafi killing "his" people.

Let's hope the Italians don't change sides at half-time

Hell. let's hope the Italians have better planes then the last time they fought in North Africa.....

 

[I Ratant]

Maybe the Rebels can find some old, abandoned German 88's to use. They would still be one hell of a good weapon for infantry support........

If a UN peacekeeping force is sent in, the Aussie contingent gets Tobruk.

.
I recall that after a Tristar sales tour to the Middle East, our guys reported seeing Panzer Mk IVs situated around some airports in Lebanon, as fixed base defense. Dug into the sand, just the turrets movable.

 

[dudalb]

Well it's old italian imperial turf so following normal european protocols I guess Italy would invade.

Well that or kill Gaddafi in the next airstrike.

Irony is that in his salad days in the early 1980's, Gadaffi blew around 25 Million bucks (at least 100 Million in today's currency) on a epic films about a revolt in 1931 by the Libyans against Mussolini, called "Lion Of the Desert".
Some great battle scenes, a few good performances by Oliver Reed as the Italian general , Rod Steiger as Il Duce, and Anthony Quinn as the leader of the revolt, but otherswise a pretty blah film. Gadaffi lost just about every penny he put into it.

 

[I Ratant]

Irony is that in his salad days in the early 1980's, Gadaffi blew around 25 Million bucks (at least 100 Million in today's currency) on a epic films about a revolt in 1931 by the Libyans against Mussolini, called "Lion Of the Desert".
Some great battle scenes, a few good performances by Oliver Reed as the Italian general , Rod Steiger as Il Duce, and Anthony Quinn as the leader of the revolt, but otherswise a pretty blah film. Gadaffi lost just about every penny he put into it.

.
I saw that late one night way back when on the tv.
I wondered about the binding of the legs of the rebels, so they wouldn't be tempted to run away from a battle.
Seemed suicidal to me, and mostly urban myth/chest-pounding, not unexpected, considering the source.

 

[Darth Rotor]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110225/pl_nm/us_libya_usa

Obama is talking to European leaders about possible actions against Libya, including even a no-fly zone to protect the protestors from aircraft strikes.

Some of his own pilots appear to be doing a dandy job of protecting the people from airstrikes, by not bombing them, and by flying off to Malta.

I suspect some of his pilots will release weapons, however ...

 

[FireGarden]

It looked hopeful for a while. But it looks like people are backing away from the idea on the grounds that a no-fly zone requires planes to be in the air where Gaddafi can shoot them down.

Why not just bring in ground based anti-aircraft weapons? How effective were stingers against Soviet helicopters?

 

[Darth Rotor]

It looked hopeful for a while. But it looks like people are backing away from the idea on the grounds that a no-fly zone requires planes to be in the air where Gaddafi can shoot them down.

Why not just bring in ground based anti-aircraft weapons? How effective were stingers against Soviet helicopters?

OK, who shall donate the MANPADS you wish to provide to the Libyan rebels? (anti government forces, whatever you want to call them)

Shall it be done on the sly, as was done with Stingers in Afghanistan, or openly?

What is your plan? I find your glib suggestion devoid of any thoughtful analysis of the political implications of that act.

 

[WildCat]

It looked hopeful for a while. But it looks like people are backing away from the idea on the grounds that a no-fly zone requires planes to be in the air where Gaddafi can shoot them down.

Why not just bring in ground based anti-aircraft weapons? How effective were stingers against Soviet helicopters?

Who's going to be in control of these weapons?

 

[FireGarden]

Whoever's willing to donate should donate.

If the decision is made to provide anti-aircraft weapons, then they should be given openly. That might actually undermine some of the support Gaddafi has.

The political ramifications are that dictators get to know the world won't stand by and watch them bomb/strafe their populations. Yes, that includes the Saudis which might make relations harder with them. But we should learn to do without that kind of friend, anyway.

Yes, giving these weapons to the Libyans means they get the weapons. Maybe that isn't ideal. But the choices are: let Gaddafi have complete control of the air; shoot down his aircraft yourself; give someone else the opportunity to shoot them down.

 

[WildCat]

Whoever's willing to donate should donate.

If the decision is made to provide anti-aircraft weapons, then they should be given openly. That might actually undermine some of the support Gaddafi has.

The political ramifications are that dictators get to know the world won't stand by and watch them bomb/strafe their populations. Yes, that includes the Saudis which might make relations harder with them. But we should learn to do without that kind of friend, anyway.

Yes, giving these weapons to the Libyans means they get the weapons. Maybe that isn't ideal. But the choices are: let Gaddafi have complete control of the air; shoot down his aircraft yourself; give someone else the opportunity to shoot them down.

No way are anti-aircraft weapons going to be air dropped into Libya where who knows who will pick them up. And how would they be trained to use them? There's no clear leader of the opposition, I'm not aware of any reliable contacts western intelligence has with opposition groups in Libya.

IMHO Stinger-type AA missiles is not going to happen.

If you want a no-fly zone realize that Step 1 of such a zone is to bomb/destroy whatever anti-aircraft systems Quadaffi has. No doubt he'll use the tried and true method favored by despots of placing such assets on the roofs of hospitals, schools, etc, where civilian casualties are sure to follow. I predict that within a few hours of such a no-fly zone the useful idiots will be screaming for Obama to be tried for war crimes. It's predictable as sunrise.

 

[FireGarden]

If you want a no-fly zone realize that Step 1 of such a zone is to bomb/destroy whatever anti-aircraft systems Quadaffi has.

Or bombing his planes while they're on the ground.

No doubt he'll use the tried and true method favored by despots of placing such assets on the roofs of hospitals, schools, etc, where civilian casualties are sure to follow. I predict that within a few hours of such a no-fly zone the useful idiots will be screaming for Obama to be tried for war crimes. It's predictable as sunrise.

And quite rightly, too.
If the point of taking action is to stop innocent people dying, then killing innocent people would seem to be a rather daft thing to do. Why not just let Gaddaffi kill the innocent people?

If Gaddafi can't be stopped in a less expensive manner than bombing hospitals, then don't bother.

 

[Darth Rotor]

If the point of taking action is to stop innocent people dying, then killing innocent people would seem to be a rather daft thing to do. Why not just let Gaddaffi kill the innocent people?

Why do you presume innocence? Simply because somebody is anti-Gadhaffi does not necessarily indicate "innocence." (Whatever the hell "innocence" means).

As I pointed out before, now amplified, any of us who empathizes or supports the folks rising up against an autocrat (which I do) ought to remember that this is a Libyan Civil War. In Civil Wars the arbitrary black and white labels the media love to assign are a conceptual trap.

The UN has put up with Gadhaffi as the more or less legitimate leader of Libya for FORTY FREAKIN YEARS! The international community has no legitimacy in coloring him as unreservedly "the bad guy" (though in my opinion he is) given that he's been condoned for longer than you, for example, have been alive.

That said, if an orderly transition to a less autocratic and more pluralist government in Libya can be achieved, GOOD! If not, then they'll need to fight their Civil War and do their best to put it all back together when they are done.

Edit To Add: I would hope that any nation will offer assistance, where asked for, in the "putting things back together" phase.

DR

 

[WildCat]

Or bombing his planes while they're on the ground.

Airplanes can be secreted in bunkers, helicopters can be hidden just about anywhere. Saddam managed to keep his air force largely intact, provided he didn't try to fly them, in the face of a much more intense campaign than is likely to be launched against Qadaffi.

And, of course, even to bomb the planes on the ground you still need to take out his AA defenses, which he likely put in hospitals, schools, etc.

And quite rightly, too.
If the point of taking action is to stop innocent people dying, then killing innocent people would seem to be a rather daft thing to do. Why not just let Gaddaffi kill the innocent people?

If Gaddafi can't be stopped in a less expensive manner than bombing hospitals, then don't bother.

And this is why we won't bother. All Qadaffi has to do is commit another war crime (putting anti-aircraft assets in civilian areas) to allow him to continue other war crimes, bombing civilians. This is the peril of manufacturing brand new war crimes, such as asserting that the responsibility for civilian deaths resulting from Qadaffi's choice of putting military assets in civilian areas lies not with Qadaffi but with the powers that bombed said military assets. All these revisionist rules of warfare have done is make it far easier for a despot commit war crimes with impunity, at the expense of civilians.

 

[McHrozni]

IF this becomes a full scale civil war, and Ghadaffi tries to retake the Eastern half of Libya, I wonder if names like Bengazi, Gazala,Tobruk, Beda Fomm,and Halfaya Pass will show up in the news...again.

If he survives the current siege of Tripoli, and takes Benghazi, the rebellion will collapse without foreign involvement. There will be an insurrection for some time, but nothing of what we're seeing now.

On the other hand, if he as much as blinks at the wrong moment or fails to score meaningful gains soon, he's coming down very hard. The rebels may not have much in the way of training or weapons, but as time passes that's bound to improve. Their numbers should overwhelm Ghaddafis' forces once that happens.

McHrozni

 

[FireGarden]

Airplanes can be secreted in bunkers, helicopters can be hidden just about anywhere. Saddam managed to keep his air force largely intact, provided he didn't try to fly them, in the face of a much more intense campaign than is likely to be launched against Qadaffi.

His planes need runways. And, if they're going to fly, they're going to be visible to satellite and other surveillance, and that will eventually give away the secret underground bunker. Do you have a link to Saddam's secret airplane bunker, btw?

And, of course, even to bomb the planes on the ground you still need to take out his AA defenses, which he likely put in hospitals, schools, etc.

You wouldn't have to use planes to bomb airfields. And, even if you did, so what if Gaddafi shoots down a few unmanned drones?

And this is why we won't bother. All Qadaffi has to do is commit another war crime (putting anti-aircraft assets in civilian areas) to allow him to continue other war crimes, bombing civilians. This is the peril of manufacturing brand new war crimes, such as asserting that the responsibility for civilian deaths resulting from Qadaffi's choice of putting military assets in civilian areas lies not with Qadaffi but with the powers that bombed said military assets. All these revisionist rules of warfare have done is make it far easier for a despot commit war crimes with impunity, at the expense of civilians.

You sound as if you think the law is wrong on this matter.

Why do you presume innocence?

Innocent until proven guilty, Darth.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Innocent until proven guilty, Darth.

Utter rubbish. That is an artifact of a courtroom, and a presumption.

You use it as a descriptive, and an assumption

You are mixing a courtroom conceit and a war.

Wrong answer, which is why I bothered to raise that point.

Why do you NOT assume Al Gadhaffi's people as innocent? Under your courtroom rubric, the governments forces are also presumed innocent, yet neither you nor the media use that construction, nor that bias, in presenting what the government forces are doing.

DR

 

[WildCat]

His planes need runways. And, if they're going to fly, they're going to be visible to satellite and other surveillance, and that will eventually give away the secret underground bunker. Do you have a link to Saddam's secret airplane bunker, btw?

You're going to spot a flying plane with a satellite? And you're ignoring the issue of AA assets, which would be the first priority.

Not really bunkers, just berms with camo netting over them. Very difficult to spot from the air, and impossible to tell where the airplanes are. It's not like they'll just be sitting there out in the open.

You wouldn't have to use planes to bomb airfields. And, even if you did, so what if Gaddafi shoots down a few unmanned drones?

Airfields can be repaired very quickly, and drones can't shoot down aircraft. And helicopter gunships don't need airstrips at all.

You sound as if you think the law is wrong on this matter.

The law places the blame squarely on those who put military assets in civilian areas, not on those who bomb them. Not that this would stop the handwringers from making war crime accusations against the wrong party.

 

[Darth Rotor]

You're going to spot a flying plane with a satellite? And you're ignoring the issue of AA assets, which would be the first priority.

Not really bunkers, just berms with camo netting over them. Very difficult to spot from the air, and impossible to tell where the airplanes are. It's not like they'll just be sitting there out in the open.


Airfields can be repaired very quickly, and drones can't shoot down aircraft. And helicopter gunships don't need airstrips at all.

Actually, a drone could shoot down an aircraft, but given what most drones are armed with, it'd be a tricky shot.

More precisely, a Predator drone could shoot down a helicopter with a Hellfire, but
a) the target acquisition element of that shot would need to be spot on, and
b) IMO the helicopter would need to be unalerted and flying in a non-evasive flight path.

There are a few other technical details on that shot I'll not discuss here.

 

[leftysergeant]

Saddam just left his fighters sitting on airfields and let the wind bury them in sand between wars.

The best thing foreign powers could do now is to blockade Tripoli. Neighboring countries can seal their borders, except for Egypt. They can provide overland logistical support such as evacuation and resuppy to rebel strong holds.

Maybe someone could buy some Russian milsurp weapons and send them in via Egypt.

And that one brigade will probably be stretched thin trying to deal with a thirty-five-mile wide front with irregular forces appearing seemingly out of nowhere to harras their flanks. Ask anybody who dealt with logistics in Iraq how well equipment-intensive operations do without good supply trains in the desert.

Daffy doesn't have the bottomless pit of bodies, beans and bullets we had and he is facing a larger population of insurrgents with a lot better weapons than the Iraqi insurrgents could muster.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Saddam just left his fighters sitting on airfields and let the wind bury them in sand between wars.

The best thing foreign powers could do now is to blockade Tripoli. Neighboring countries can seal their borders, except for Egypt. They can provide overland logistical support such as evacuation and resuppy to rebel strong holds.

Maybe someone could buy some Russian milsurp weapons and send them in via Egypt.

And that one brigade will probably be stretched thin trying to deal with a thirty-five-mile wide front with irregular forces appearing seemingly out of nowhere to harras their flanks. Ask anybody who dealt with logistics in Iraq how well equipment-intensive operations do without good supply trains in the desert.

Daffy doesn't have the bottomless pit of bodies, beans and bullets we had and he is facing a larger population of insurrgents with a lot better weapons than the Iraqi insurrgents could muster.

Lefty, how well organized do you think the resistance is? I think you overestimate it. It may get more organized as time goes on, but I'm not so sure at the moment.