Exit strategy for Libya?

[Caustic Logic]

Problem is that some doubt has been cast on the authenticity of the al Qaeda in Iraq documents. Remember the Shrub's SOTU remarks about documentation that Saddam was buyng African yellow cake?

I'd have to see the link for that - anything past trying to make excuses for our new allies?

Supporting evidence, two points in ten minutes:

Islamist extremism does, however, have roots in Libya. The town of Darnah, up the road going east from Benghazi, was the site of a failed Islamist uprising against Gaddafi in the 1990s. Later, it became known for the young men who left it to join the insurgency in Iraq. "If you asked any of the mujahedin from Libya in Iraq where they're from, they said Darnah," says Mohamed el-Tahawy, a banker who drove from the eastern city of Tobruk to join the battle in Ras Lanuf. He adds that Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the fearsome leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq who was killed in 2006, once said, "I will go to Darnah to see what is this city that is sending so many."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/08599205745500

Feb 23, 2011 ... According to the Libyan Foreign Ministry, al Qaeda has created an “Islamist Emirate” in Darnah, Libya, Al Arabiya reported Feb. 23.

http://www.stratfor.com/sitrep/20110223-libya-al-qaeda-creates-islamist-emirate-derna

They (al-Libya) were right about the rebel massacre 22 of the 130 soldiers and mercenaries on about that date, in and near al-Baida, smack between Dernah and Benghazi. Don't toss it aside too easily, but I didn't look at the evidence or anything just yet.

 

[McHrozni]

Getting the UN Resolution to support military action in Libya was almost a miracle (thank you Ghaddafi for pissing off everyone, including your neighbors), but the Resolution was just short of allowing assasination of the root of the problem, only supporting defense of civilians. Given this fact and the fact that the Libyan protestors must now attack dug-in Ghaddafi forces in Sirte to move on to Tripoli, the coalition seems crippled by their UN mandate.

Unless major parts of Ghaddafi's army change sides, I foresee a very drawn-out scenario. Even a splitting of Libya into two states.

Should we reconsider arming the protesters? What's the exit strategy here?

We should consider it, yes, and we should also consider the implications.
First and foremost, eastern Libya has more than it's fair share of islamic militants who could use it against us once the civil war ends. Certainly, anti-air weapons are no longer necessary, but other weapons too can be potent terror weapons.
Second, arming them with what? Libya is the ideal tank country, inherently unsuited for guerilla warfare. The rebels will need to engage Quackdaffi in conventional warfare in the open. No infantry weapon in existence will give you a good chance against tanks and other heavy weapons. If you're on the offensive, you'll be hard pressed to win with infantry weapons - and the rebels will need to take offensive if they're to win in anything other than long term. Arming them with heavy weapons is questionable on too many levels to even begin the discussion.

Arming them with sufficient light weapons to take and hold Ras Lanuf and eventually starve out Quackdaffi may be a realistic possibility. That's about as good as it gets I'm afraid.

The only way to take out Quackdaffi relatively quickly and without an invasion would be a large scale rebellion in his own army. It is possible that arming the rebels would help facilitate that, so arming them may not be a terrible idea after all ... IF AQ stays out.

McHrozni

 

[Laeke]

So much for the rebels holding their ground, they are pingponging positions at Ras Lanouf...

 

[geni]

So much for the rebels holding their ground, they are pingponging positions at Ras Lanouf...

Yes it appears we may finaly have found a group that the Libyan may actualy be able to beat.

 

[McHrozni]

So much for the rebels holding their ground, they are pingponging positions at Ras Lanouf...

Some reports say that both Ras Lanuf and Brega have fallen again and that the rebels are retreating towards Ajdabiyah once more. Even if this will turn out to be false as of now, it will be true within a day or two if Quackdaffis' forces aren't stopped by airstrikes again.

It's rather hard to fight tanks in open desert without tactical air support and your own tanks.

McHrozni

 

[Ziggurat]

Read Clausewitz. Read a history of Vietnam. We don't even need to put boots on the ground to give them the boost they need to win. Modernised weapons would help. The stuff they're using is a mix of high-tech and WWII milsurp.

In other words, they can win if we arm them.

But we're not arming them. And the administration isn't talking about arming them. So again, I don't see victory as a given at all.

Then we have an exit strategy. When he falls, we go home.

That is not an exit strategy, that is an exit condition. A strategy would be a plan to ensure that it happens. We don't have one, at least not publicly.

If he wins, we go home and just take a peek every now and then to make sure he doesn't go mucking around outside his own borders.

And if he neither wins nor loses, but the conflict results in a stalemate? What then? Shall we enforce the no-fly zone in perpetuity? We don't have a plan to ensure that EITHER outcome (the Duck winning or losing) occurs. So we do not have an exist strategy.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Should we reconsider arming the protesters?

You mean the rebels, right? They took down one of Libya's planes before the coalition got involved, so they're not peaceful protesters.

Right now they're retaking cities along the coast with the air support of the coalition, so I think it's clear that we've taken sides in this conflict and have pretty much given up the notion that we're only there protecting civilians.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

In other words, they can win if we arm them.

But we're not arming them. And the administration isn't talking about arming them. So again, I don't see victory as a given at all.

Yep.

If the goal was a quick end to the conflict in Libya without taking sides, we should've just left them alone. Libya's military was a lot stronger than that of the rebels before we interceded.

I think it's becoming clear that we are taking sides, and that it's pointless to do so halfway. I mentioned earlier that I see no legal or moral distinction in whether or not our intervention is lobbing missiles or of the "boots on the ground" variety. It's just that no boots on the ground makes our involvement more palatable to us.

I expect at some point the coalition, perhaps even the UN, will have to abandon the charade that we are there just to protect civilians. Either that, or this will be a long and nasty war that we have involved ourselves in.

 

[Keeper]

I think it's becoming clear that we are taking sides, and that it's pointless to do so halfway. I mentioned earlier that I see no legal or moral distinction in whether or not our intervention is lobbing missiles or of the "boots on the ground" variety. It's just that no boots on the ground makes our involvement more palatable to us.

There was some suggestion that the 'rebels' had said they don't want ground involvement. However, I don't know how authentic that is or even whether there is any single source that can be said to represent the majority of the 'rebels'. However, even if true I imagine that the last sentence of yours above plays a strong role in the thinking of politicians - which is a horrible thought.

Regarding the discussion on terminology I would suggest that the objective is the removal of Gaddafi and the strategy is to do this through creating a no-fly zone and protecting civilians through military action. The two possible exit strategies would appear to be a) being successful in the objective or b) give up trying. What isn't clear is the contingency planning i.e. what will we do if the above 2 strategies can't be followed for whatever reason.

I find it incredible that these politicians think that they can avoid the pitfalls associated with military intervention that befell previous generations.

 

[Caustic Logic]

You mean the rebels, right? They took down one of Libya's planes before the coalition got involved, so they're not peaceful protesters.

Nope. Rick Leventhal of Fox News was allowed to see and film next to the wreckage of that jet - it had the Monarchy flag on the tail, and rebels said it was theirs. First it was reported a regime jet shot by "protesters," ejected pilot, unknown status. Then it was a "protester" jet shot down on mistake, pilot was fine. Then it was a "protester" jet, shot down by Gaddafi's forces, pilot dead. This helped support the rebel claim that Gaddafi's forces were as close to Benghazi as they'd been claiming (without evidence - they swear they were holding fire many miles away). Close enough to be attacked by that jet, close enough to shoot it down. Violated cease fire, first undeniable evidence! Bombs within hours, says France. And it was closer to a day, but technically hours. Only a day ahead of "Southern Storm," a planned UK-France joint air training exercise to simulate "very long range" bombing runs.

(or so I hear - inviting de-bunks and such here, where the exit strategy already set at the highest levels, to be leaked to us in bits, might be illuminated by France's months-planned entrance strategy)

Right now they're retaking cities along the coast with the air support of the coalition, so I think it's clear that we've taken sides in this conflict and have pretty much given up the notion that we're only there protecting civilians.

Rather, I think the rest of us are starting to catch on.

 

[egslim]

An additional complication is politicians will be reluctant to withdraw their military involvement if it means accepting defeat in some way.

What happens if the civil war doesn't end after Gadaffi is removed? Do we then withdraw 'mission accomplished' while Libyans keep killing eachother? Or do we intervene further to 'force' pacification?

It's much easier to get involved in a civil war, than it is to get out.

To get out we depend either on our politicians willing to accept failure, or the rebels to work out a clean solution. I have little confidence in both.

 

[TraneWreck]

I find it incredible that these politicians think that they can avoid the pitfalls associated with military intervention that befell previous generations.

It seems to me that this is a situation with no "good" alternatives. On the one hand, Quaddafi really did say he was going to slaughter people, he has been slaughtering people, and there's no reason to think he won't continue. Any sort of commitment to human rights leads to the conclusion that countries with the power to intervene have to do what they can.

On the other hand, the rebels are an unorganized mob of people, some of whom are very likely Al Qaeda members. I haven't seen confirmation one way or another, but I doubt anyone is willing to assure us that these groups are Al Qaeda free. Blindly arming insurgents usually isn't good policy, but absent that, it appears that some type of ground involvement will ultimately be necessary to overthrow Quaddafi.

Other alternatives, like partitioning Libya, are equally poorly thought out at this point.

The only certainty is that any half-assed decision is doomed to fail. These aren't the types of adventures can sort of engage in, we have plenty of historical examples of unmitigated disasters that began with politicians trying to play both sides.

As I said, I can't see any good decision here. There will be extreme costs on both sides, but whatever choice we make, we need to be very clear about the goals and deploy whatever resources we can spare to make it happen. If we don't have the resources or will to accomplish that goal, we shouldn't even dip our toe in the water.

I hope this concludes quickly, but I'm not optimistic. Happy, very happy, to be wrong.

 

[Ziggurat]

For your amusement, the Libya situation as told by Angry Birds:

 

[egslim]

On the one hand, Quaddafi really did say he was going to slaughter people, he has been slaughtering people, and there's no reason to think he won't continue.

Define slaughter.

Civil wars tend to be a lot more bloody than even the most brutal dictator.

 

[Caustic Logic]

It seems to me that this is a situation with no "good" alternatives. On the one hand, Quaddafi really did say he was going to slaughter people,

He said he'd crush those who continued to rebel, and foregive those who put their guns. That's carrot and stick, and I suspect he'd follow up on it. Needless slaughter helps us panic, but it's not actually a logical course.

he has been slaughtering people,

Less than reported, we can be sure (see the stuff on the al-Baida massacre rel. to claims of 130 Libyan soldiers executed by their own). How much less depends on sorting out fact vs. rebel reports. We're rushing to do this before getting clarity is what we're doing.

and there's no reason to think he won't continue.

Continue what, exactly, is the question. Certainly escalating the war, giving the rebels more towns that need re-taken, certainly isn't helping.

On the other hand, the rebels are an unorganized mob of people, some of whom are very likely Al Qaeda members. I haven't seen confirmation one way or another, but I doubt anyone is willing to assure us that these groups are Al Qaeda free. Blindly arming insurgents usually isn't good policy, but absent that, it appears that some type of ground involvement will ultimately be necessary to overthrow Quaddafi.

QFT.

 

[Piggy]

He said he'd crush those who continued to rebel, and foregive those who put their guns. That's carrot and stick, and I suspect he'd follow up on it.

Who, Gaddafi? You gotta be kidding me. That guy's got a history of brutality against anyone who even thinks about opposing him.

No, I wouldn't trust him to "forgive" anybody.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nope. Rick Leventhal of Fox News was allowed to see and film next to the wreckage of that jet - it had the Monarchy flag on the tail, and rebels said it was theirs. First it was reported a regime jet shot by "protesters," ejected pilot, unknown status. Then it was a "protester" jet shot down on mistake, pilot was fine. Then it was a "protester" jet, shot down by Gaddafi's forces, pilot dead.

I hadn't heard that, but it does nothing to support the position that these are peaceful, unarmed, defenseless protestors to claim that they can accidentally shoot down one of their own fighter jets, or any of the other permutations.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Define slaughter.

Civil wars tend to be a lot more bloody than even the most brutal dictator.

Apparently, slaughter in Syria is 60 people, and in the Ivory Coast about 460 people, in Libya an unknown number of people, in Kurdish lands a few thousand people, and at Kent State 4 people.

*sinister laugh*

Next interesting question?

 

[Piggy]

I hadn't heard that, but it does nothing to support the position that these are peaceful, unarmed, defenseless protestors to claim that they can accidentally shoot down one of their own fighter jets, or any of the other permutations.

I have to give American media good marks on this one.

They were pretty accurate in shifting their language from "protesters" to "rebels" as the situation transitioned from unarmed demonstrators to armed fighters.

 

[Laeke]

Then again, I don't think anyone expected the NFZ/airstrikes to be effective in a week. That does not mean they are useless.

The Foreign Minister has defected, for instance...
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/31/libya-mousa-kousa-gaddafi-foreign-minister

I don't think forcing the regime into submission will be that difficult. However, the issue of "what then?" will be as tough as ever, but I am not sure there are any way to guarantee an happy outcome there, no matter what precautions you take.