Exit strategy for Libya?

[Toontown]

I have seen some messages like yours and I wonder: isn't it a tad easy to make sarcastic remarks behind a keyboard about how they fight?

I do not deny that their military action seems inefficient, but the way some of them pose for the camera has little to do with it, I think.

Why are they posing for the cameras? Are they fighting or play-acting?

I spent a year deep in the bowels of Vietnam. I only posed for a couple of pictures while in rear areas. In a war, you're either taking care of business, or you're jacking off in a rear area. There is no posing during combat operations.

My point being, since you seemed to miss it: Kill Kadaffy. It's the only way. These rebels can't win against Kadaffy's regulars and mercenaries. But kill Kadaffy, and maybe the money supply to the mercenaries dries up. Maybe the chain of command breaks.

 

[geni]

Why are they posing for the cameras? Are they fighting or play-acting?

Bit of both.

I spent a year deep in the bowels of Vietnam. I only posed for a couple of pictures while in rear areas. In a war, you're either taking care of business, or you're jacking off in a rear area. There is no posing during combat operations.

I've seen photos from WW2 that show otherwise. In this case most of the photographers are journalists who tend to stay behind the most forward part of the front lines.

Vietnam isn't comparible for a number of reasons

Firstly you have the terrian. In libya lines of sight are significant. The risk of ambush is far lower and outside of the towns combat tends towards long range exchanges of fire.

Secondly you are looking at a different type of war. Strangely they have more in common with traditional pitched battles than Vietnam guerilla war.

Thirdly you are looking at different martial traditions. The rebels are to a large extent fighting like modern african irregulars. Pray and spray and the side that runs away least far wins. Posing for the camera is part of trying convince yourself not to run away.

My point being, since you seemed to miss it: Kill Kadaffy. It's the only way. These rebels can't win against Kadaffy's regulars and mercenaries. But kill Kadaffy, and maybe the money supply to the mercenaries dries up. Maybe the chain of command breaks.

We don't know where Gaddafi is and it's unlikely we could find out. Worse still at least some of his sons are in a position to take over.

 

[Darth Rotor]

egslim, shooting precious rounds into the air to mug for the cameras is crap fire discipline, crap discipiline, and crap bravado, and the mark or a bunch of rubes and amateurs screwing off with firearms ... not the mark of soldiers.

Yes, comparisons to Viet Nam on the tactical level make little headway, but when it comes to the nature of soldiering, Toontown is speaking truth.

Crappy soldiers don't win unless fighting crappier soldiers, or soldiers so badly led they can't put a fight together.

Save the bullets for the fight, and use celebratory gunfire AFTER you've won ... which they haven't yet.

 

[Laeke]

Kill Kadaffy. It's the only way.

I seriously doubt it would be of great use (pretty much what geni said), even if we could it at will (we probably can't). The few vibes I get from Libyan politics is that no one really know who does what, and experts are mostly people raising a wet finger to sense the wind -a tad like "Kremlinology"-. Kadhaffi doesn't even seem to be doing much as a charismatic leader, we seldom see him.

The rebels are not very effective, but we cannot (under current conditions) do their job for them.

A stalemate leading to negociations would perhaps be the best outcome: removing Kadhaffi and his family from power, gaining reforms but leaving quite a bit of the infrastructure and administration standing which could be useful for avoiding a collapse. It's not very romantic, but it is maybe more practical.

 

[Policenaut]

Yeah more practical but how realistic? Kadaffi and his sons don't want to leave. What could possibly persuade them to leave when they have the upper hand in the current situation?

 

[Laeke]

Yeah more practical but how realistic? Kadaffi and his sons don't want to leave. What could possibly persuade them to leave when they have the upper hand in the current situation?

Do they have the upper hand? They are not in a corner yet, but the regime has sent out peace feelers and proposed negociations a few days ago. Maybe it is for show... But so far, the intervention means that they cannot gain back what they lost through military action, and the current state of affairs is not beneficial in any way for them.
Will it be enough? I dunno.

 

[geni]

egslim, shooting precious rounds into the air to mug for the cameras is crap fire discipline, crap discipiline, and crap bravado, and the mark or a bunch of rubes and amateurs screwing off with firearms ... not the mark of soldiers.

They are a bunch of amateurs. I'm not sure anyone is arguing otherwise. If any of the former millitry are actualy involved in the conflict we haven't seen them.

Crappy soldiers don't win unless fighting crappier soldiers, or soldiers so badly led they can't put a fight together.

The rebel fighters do not appear to have any fuctional leadership at all.

 

[Policenaut]

Do they have the upper hand? They are not in a corner yet, but the regime has sent out peace feelers and proposed negociations a few days ago. Maybe it is for show... But so far, the intervention means that they cannot gain back what they lost through military action, and the current state of affairs is not beneficial in any way for them.
Will it be enough? I dunno.

Well no one is in exactly a good position but I think Gadaffi is in the best position right now. He doesn't really have to do anything at all but keep his positions. As long as it is a stalemate situation (with the rebels unable to advance or even form a coherent strategy and NATO not stepping up their campaign) he is winning. If i stays like it is now for an extended period of time I think eventually the rebels will give up trying to advance and just dig in at their stronghold. Unless we arm them they are going to run out of supplies sooner or later.

 

[Laeke]

Depends on how effective is the embargo, I would say. And how quick will the army find ways around the airstrikes (it has already begun: It seems they use civilian vehicles among their convoys and that in Misrata, forces are dispatched in the city among inhabitants).

 

[egslim]

All have the fighting spirit but none have military training or heavy weapons or the knowledge of how to use them.

Gotta love this quote: He (One of the rebel fighters, ed) looked surprised when asked why he and his comrades were not going forward to engage the enemy. "Because it is dangerous, we might get shot. It is for Nato to clear the Gaddafi men," he explained.
You call that fighting spirit?

egslim, shooting precious rounds into the air to mug for the cameras is crap fire discipline, crap discipiline, and crap bravado, and the mark or a bunch of rubes and amateurs screwing off with firearms ... not the mark of soldiers.

Yes, comparisons to Viet Nam on the tactical level make little headway, but when it comes to the nature of soldiering, Toontown is speaking truth.

Crappy soldiers don't win unless fighting crappier soldiers, or soldiers so badly led they can't put a fight together.

Save the bullets for the fight, and use celebratory gunfire AFTER you've won ... which they haven't yet.

I'm not sure why you directed that comment at me, it sounds more like a reply to Laeke.
In any case, I agree the rebels are crappy fighters. I think I was one of the first on this forum to question their ability to take the cities quickly, when the airstrikes began.

Thirdly you are looking at different martial traditions. The rebels are to a large extent fighting like modern african irregulars. Pray and spray and the side that runs away least far wins. Posing for the camera is part of trying convince yourself not to run away.

Yeah. The Western concept of soldiering is completely irrelevant to most African wars. They're not about decisive pitched battles, but combine pray and spray with massacres and rapes. Given difficult terrain and few industrial resources, it's a much better strategy if you want to win. (Modern Western armies care little about winning, they prefer to make an idealistic point.)
Problem for the rebels in Libya is they're fighting in the desert instead of the bush, without cover.

Depends on how effective is the embargo, I would say. And how quick will the army find ways around the airstrikes (it has already begun: It seems they use civilian vehicles among their convoys and that in Misrata, forces are dispatched in the city among inhabitants).

The decisive factor is NATO's political will. If Obama, Sarkozy or Cameron insist on getting rid of Gadaffi, his days are numbered. They can step up the blockade, the airstrikes, arm rebels, send special forces or mercenaries to help, etc.
If they don't have the political will to do those things, or even to continue the current operation for as long as it takes, then Gadaffi can survive.

And of course Gadaffi's forces hide among civilian convoys and in cities. They want to win. NATO just wants to make a point.

 

[leftysergeant]

Crappy soldiers don't win unless fighting crappier soldiers, or soldiers so badly led they can't put a fight together.

Or they can just cause Daffy one tremendous logistical headcche until he runs out of war materiel. He aint gonna get any serious resipply of ammo when he runs out of what he has now, and the rebels just grab what they can where they can. You would have thought that the insurgents in Iraq and the die-hard Taliban would have been effectively disarmed by now, wouldn't you?

Until they manage to rip off the Kalashnikov of a fallen loyalist, most of these bumpkins are armed with Carcanos older than I am. That's one of the good things about being an ad hoc pack off zealots. You needn't be all that neat.

Save the bullets for the fight, and use celebratory gunfire AFTER you've won ... which they haven't yet.

Meh. Morale is really important to a guerilla army. If they can convince themselves that they are winners even as Fortuna wobbles drunkenly between thebattle lines, they are more likely to stand fast in their opposition to the government until someone pries those WWII relics from their cold, dead hands.

 

[egslim]

Or they can just cause Daffy one tremendous logistical headcche until he runs out of war materiel. He aint gonna get any serious resipply of ammo when he runs out of what he has now, and the rebels just grab what they can where they can. You would have thought that the insurgents in Iraq and the die-hard Taliban would have been effectively disarmed by now, wouldn't you?.

Gadaffi's forces now use mainly the same kind of weapons the rebels have.

Both sides face similar logistic challenges.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-04-08-libya_N.htm?csp=34news

AJDABIYA, Libya — Libyan rebels guarding the western entrance of the contested city of Ajdabiya briefly deserted their post under mortar attack Friday, as Moammar Gadhafi's forces pushed to within a few miles after Thursday's botched NATO airstrike against a column of rebel tanks.

Looks like Gadhafi has his own exit strategy in mind.

 

[Laeke]

And of course Gadaffi's forces hide among civilian convoys and in cities.

I was not raising some sort of outrage at those techniques. I just wanted to point out that the regime's forces were adapting to the situation and that it is difficult to know if the airstrikes would be as effective because of that.

 

[egslim]

I was not raising some sort of outrage at those techniques. I just wanted to point out that the regime's forces were adapting to the situation and that it is difficult to know if the airstrikes would be as effective because of that.

Fair enough.

I sometimes get the impression Americans are outraged their enemies don't move around the countryside in easily recognizable military convoys, obediently presenting themselves to be bombed to pieces without collateral damage by the almighty USAF.

And that attitude pisses me off to no end. It's stupid and dangrous.

Sorry for the rant, it wasn't directed at you.

Anyway, a few days ago NATO reported it had degraded Gadaffi's combat capabilities by 30% since the start of the intervention. Divide that by three, because aviators always exagerate their achievements, and his capability is still at 90% of what it was.

 

[Policenaut]

Even without tanks or air power Gadaffi is still beating the rebels quite handily. Again one gets the idea that this fool hearty adventure was not planned well. NATO must have anticipated that they would start blending in with the rebels. This is a classic guerrilla warfare style tactic that has been used consistently by the taliban and al qaeda. The only problem is the rebels should be the ones using guerrilla tactics if they want to eventually take down Gadaffi. Right now there seems to be no plan, no tactics, no nothing except pleas of "hey NATO please bomb Gadaffi more". The way things are going I don't see how Gadaffi loses.

 

[little grey rabbit]

Even without tanks or air power Gadaffi is still beating the rebels quite handily. Again one gets the idea that this fool hearty adventure was not planned well. NATO must have anticipated that they would start blending in with the rebels. This is a classic guerrilla warfare style tactic that has been used consistently by the taliban and al qaeda. The only problem is the rebels should be the ones using guerrilla tactics if they want to eventually take down Gadaffi. Right now there seems to be no plan, no tactics, no nothing except pleas of "hey NATO please bomb Gadaffi more". The way things are going I don't see how Gadaffi loses.

As I understand it the EU are about to send ground troops into Misrata under guise of a humanitarian mission. If the EU can beat back the Libyan army around Misrata they can effectively cut the communications of the East from Tripoli - in a few weeks Sirt ought to fall to the insurgents like a ripe plum. With a sufficiently brutal massacre there by the insurgents - ["Civilian Protesters hunt down Gaddafi loyalists, with occasional excesses in response to decades of genocide"] - enough in Tripoli might be persuaded that the only way to save their skin is to make an accommodation with the insurgents - since once Misrata is linked all the way to Benghazi they really only contain a pocket of the country. Possibly we might be able to release some people from Gitmo to join AQIM in filitrating from Tunisia and Algeria to help tie up more government troops.

In general our exit strategy is the same as it always. Leave the place in a complete mess a la Afghanistan and Iraq and have a good snigger as the civil war prolongs into decades.

 

[mike3]

Fair enough.

I sometimes get the impression Americans are outraged their enemies don't move around the countryside in easily recognizable military convoys, obediently presenting themselves to be bombed to pieces without collateral damage by the almighty USAF.

And that attitude pisses me off to no end. It's stupid and dangrous.

So what's the correct and proper attitude here? How did you deduce it, and where can "Americans" acquire as much knowledge as you have so as to NOT be "stupid and dangerous" with their powerless personal opinions?

 

[mike3]

What breathtaking mendacity, what a vile mixture of racism and hypocrisy.

Where is the "racism" part?!

 

[mike3]

In general our exit strategy is the same as it always. Leave the place in a complete mess a la Afghanistan and Iraq and have a good snigger as the civil war prolongs into decades.

So what do you think we should do with Iraq & Afghanistan right now? Stay in more, spend a few trillion more on it? And what to do with Libya, _right now_? Just cut and run?