Exit strategy for Libya?

[DanishDynamite]

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?

 

[Ziggurat]

Should we reconsider arming the protesters?

Quite risky, given their likely infiltration by al Qaeda.

What's the exit strategy here?

There is none. Or at least, none that has been made public. It would be nice to think that the administration has some secret scheme up their sleeve to sort this all out, but that's really just wishful thinking.

 

[leftysergeant]

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

We should allow anyone who wants to deliver some armaments to do so. As it is, the rebels are mostly using captured government suplies, including, apparently an amazing number of Carcano rifles.

Maybe InterArms could be persuaded to take a plane load of AKs and 7.62X39 ammo to Benghazi and trade straight across, gun for gun, round for round. It would solve one logistical problem.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Quite risky, given their likely infiltration by al Qaeda.

No bases for that assertion as far as I know.

There is none. Or at least, none that has been made public. It would be nice to think that the administration has some secret scheme up their sleeve to sort this all out, but that's really just wishful thinking.

Really? None what-so-ever? Ziggurat, you are a great intelligence, possibly greater than mine. Do you seriously claim that no exit strategy is possible?

 

[leftysergeant]

Quite risky, given their likely infiltration by al Qaeda.

I have seen no sign that the Wahabis are powerful enough in Libya to grab a lot of post-war power. And they probably have a lot of rich benefactors who could funnel them all the arms they needed, if it would give them a leg up. It would be nice if the rational people involved also saw us as allies on this fight so that they would not hold any grudge for beingleft flapping in the breeze. Just holding towns is not a victory for the government. I think that the rebels will win, eventually. For humanitarian purposes, sooner is better than later.

The exit strategy should be clear. As soon as Daffy bugs out or is taken out, we stop bombing and bring our carriers home or dispatch them elsewhere. Not a problem if you don't have boots on the ground, and there is no reason that we should have them.



There is none. Or at least, none that has been made public. It would be nice to think that the administration has some secret scheme up their sleeve to sort this all out, but that's really just wishful thinking.[/QUOTE]

 

[DanishDynamite]

We should allow anyone who wants to deliver some armaments to do so. As it is, the rebels are mostly using captured government suplies, including, apparently an amazing number of Carcano rifles.

Maybe InterArms could be persuaded to take a plane load of AKs and 7.62X39 ammo to Benghazi and trade straight across, gun for gun, round for round. It would solve one logistical problem.

So you are in favor of arming the protestors. Could you explain how your method of arming would ensure that no arms went to Al-Queda or equivalent?

 

[theprestige]

What's the exit strategy here?

Exit from what? Foreign nations could stop shooting at Libya this afternoon, and that would be the end of our troubles in Libya. Hard to imagine we'd need anything on the level of an actual "strategy".

 

[DanishDynamite]

I have seen no sign that the Wahabis are powerful enough in Libya to grab a lot of post-war power. And they probably have a lot of rich benefactors who could funnel them all the arms they needed, if it would give them a leg up. It would be nice if the rational people involved also saw us as allies on this fight so that they would not hold any grudge for beingleft flapping in the breeze. Just holding towns is not a victory for the government. I think that the rebels will win, eventually. For humanitarian purposes, sooner is better than later.

The exit strategy should be clear. As soon as Daffy bugs out or is taken out, we stop bombing and bring our carriers home or dispatch them elsewhere. Not a problem if you don't have boots on the ground, and there is no reason that we should have them.



There is none. Or at least, none that has been made public. It would be nice to think that the administration has some secret scheme up their sleeve to sort this all out, but that's really just wishful thinking.

The West's opinion of and ability to maintain their current military action on, Libya, rests solely on the UN resolution. Hence the problem.

 

[Keeper]

We should allow anyone who wants to deliver some armaments to do so. As it is, the rebels are mostly using captured government suplies, including, apparently an amazing number of Carcano rifles.

So we have a direct link between the current Libyan situation and the JFK assassination? What might you have started here?

Seriously, I remain sceptical that there is a grand master plan here. Plan A must have been for Gaddafi to be at tipping point with a slight shove pushing the rebels into power. But this seems incredibly naive. As to Plan B, C or D it really isn't clear at all.

I'm also interested in the increasing role of the USA when they were apparently (and I use the word advisedly from a UK perspective) not a driving force behind the initial no-fly zone.

All very baffling.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Exit from what? Foreign nations could stop shooting at Libya this afternoon, and that would be the end of our troubles in Libya. Hard to imagine we'd need anything on the level of an actual "strategy".

Exit from the implementation of the UN resolution by participating nations.

 

[Laeke]

Either the regime falls, or the fighting drags long enough to bring everyone to the table.
If a cease fire happens and that negociations ensues, it is likely that the intervention will stop and that some sort of interposition force (using soldiers from voluntary African states, among others). The present coalition could guarantee the integrity of this and bombing be resumed if need be
The partition of the country, even if it happens, will need to be discussed anyway.

Most everyone would prefer Kadhaffi to step down. The regime could fall from exhaustion (airstrikes, oil exports halted, no money coming in...), but for this the rebels need to be able to hold ground and/or push forward. Not impossible but not guaranteed either.

EDIT: Maybe the most important thing is to help the rebels... in a non military way. They need to get the ball rolling in terms of civil organisation and such. If this drags on, it will turn into a war of attrition. And the regime cannot win this: they are bombed, and they are embargoed. The rebels just need to outlast them.

The current level of involvement from the coalition planes seems to ensure that pro-regime forces will not be able to launch any great attack on the front line (their heavy weapons would be trounced).

 

[Ziggurat]

No bases for that assertion as far as I know.

How much attention have you been paying?

Take, for example, Abdul-Hakim al-Hasadi. He's one of the rebel leaders. And he fought against us in Afghanistan. On the side of Al Qaeda. Is he himself Al Qaeda? On some level that's a bit of a semantic quibble. But the threat of ties between the rebels and Islamic radicals (it doesn't actually matter too much if they're specifically Al Qaeda) is definitely something to be concerned about. And we are.

Really? None what-so-ever? Ziggurat, you are a great intelligence, possibly greater than mine. Do you seriously claim that no exit strategy is possible?

No, that's not at all what I said at all. An exit strategy may well be possible, but I've seen no signs that one has actually been formulated. There has been no public explanation of an exit strategy, and I have no reason to think that the administration has forged one in secret. Could they have? Sure. Did they? I would put the odds at significantly less than 50%. But maybe I'll be surprised. Might be nice to have a surprise be pleasant for once.

 

[Ziggurat]

I think that the rebels will win, eventually.

I don't see that as a given. Even without having to face the Duck's air force, can the ragtag rebels really face down his army? I don't think their odds are really that good without a lot more direct assistance than they've gotten so far.

The exit strategy should be clear. As soon as Daffy bugs out or is taken out, we stop bombing and bring our carriers home or dispatch them elsewhere. Not a problem if you don't have boots on the ground, and there is no reason that we should have them.

And what if he doesn't bug out? What if the statemate continues for a year? Or what if he manages to push the rebels back to the Egyptian border within the next month? What then?

You've given a condition (namely, the Duck's removal from power) under which we can "exit" from this conflict. But an exit condition is not an exit strategy. The problem is that our strategy (or at least, our public strategy) doesn't actually do anything to ensure that this condition is met. In fact, we've explicitly stated that we aren't trying to accomplish what you say our exit condition is. And if we aren't acting to ensure that the exit condition gets met, then we don't actually have an exit strategy.

 

[leftysergeant]

I don't see that as a given. Even without having to face the Duck's air force, can the ragtag rebels really face down his army? I don't think their odds are really that good without a lot more direct assistance than they've gotten so far.

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.

And what if he doesn't bug out? What if the statemate continues for a year? Or what if he manages to push the rebels back to the Egyptian border within the next month? What then?

Then we say "Stuff happens," and cover the retreat of anybody who wants to get out of Libya. If they ddo not win it themselves, we cannot win it for them.

You've given a condition (namely, the Duck's removal from power) under which we can "exit" from this conflict. But an exit condition is not an exit strategy. The problem is that our strategy (or at least, our public strategy) doesn't actually do anything to ensure that this condition is met. In fact, we've explicitly stated that we aren't trying to accomplish what you say our exit condition is. And if we aren't acting to ensure that the exit condition gets met, then we don't actually have an exit strategy.

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

 

[theprestige]

Exit from the implementation of the UN resolution by participating nations.

It's as easily done as it is said. I'm pretty sure our president could end our nation's participation with one phone call at most. What about your president?

 

[Darth Rotor]

DD, you might notice the "whatever is necessary" clause in UNSCR 1973 and rethink what you think the UN authorized.
(passed with 10 in favor, 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation),

the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory — requesting them to immediately inform the Secretary-General of such measures.

It's a sort of carte blanche, short of putting blue helmets and blue boots on Libyan ground, provided the action can in some way be presented as "protecting civilians" though what that has to do with Pro Qadaffi civilians remains to be seen, in the longer term.

Do the coalition start bombing rebels if they start shelling civilians in Sirte?

We shall see.

 

[Piggy]

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

If we decided to arm the protesters, would that somehow provide us with an "exit strategy"?

I think not.

You know, over the years, I've come to doubt the feasibility of "exit strategies".

After all, in order to have one, you'd need to be able to control the responses of your opponent, which is impossible.

I actually oppose US involvement in African civil wars, but that said, I fail to understand how the US, the UK, France, the Arab League, or NATO could possibly develop an "exit strategy" when there's no way to know what's actually going to happen in the future.

Suppose we develop an "exit strategy" and our predictions don't pan out? What then?

 

[theprestige]

If we decided to arm the protesters, would that somehow provide us with an "exit strategy"?

I think not.

You know, over the years, I've come to doubt the feasibility of "exit strategies".

After all, in order to have one, you'd need to be able to control the responses of your opponent, which is impossible.

I actually oppose US involvement in African civil wars, but that said, I fail to understand how the US, the UK, France, the Arab League, or NATO could possibly develop an "exit strategy" when there's no way to know what's actually going to happen in the future.

Suppose we develop an "exit strategy" and our predictions don't pan out? What then?

You know, that's actually a good point. Maybe we should talk less about "exit strategies" and more about "involvement strategies".

After all, it's not like Iraq or Afghanistan or Libya (or Bosnia or North Korea or the Philippines) goes away after the US makes its exit...

 

[Caustic Logic]

Quite risky, given their likely infiltration by al Qaeda.

No bases for that assertion as far as I know.

Just a ways down the page from your own thread:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=204517

A guy named John O. Brennan, among others, has conceded the fact as well. My own article on the al Qaeda and Libya:
http://lockerbiedivide.blogspot.com/2011/03/terrorists-1-and-2-ah-i-see-youve-met.html

The region has a strong Islamist influence and a history of support for the anti-Gaddafi and al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. MI6 colluded witht them to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996, in part causing Gaddafi to be the first world leader to call for the arrest of Osama bin Laden back in 1998. Al Qaeda in Iraq documents seized show the largest number of recruits, per capita, in the whole Arab world, come from eastern Libya. Other towns there ranked high.

The eastern Libyan city of Darnah sent more fighters to Iraq than any other single city or town, according to the West Point report. It noted that 52 militants came to Iraq from Darnah, a city of just 80,000 people (the second-largest source of fighters was Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, which has a population of more than 4 million).

Benghazi, the capital of Libya’s provisional government declared by the anti-Qaddafi rebels, sent in 21 fighters, again a disproportionate number of the whole.

Allied with other factions, and thus watered down (to what degree we don't know), they are currently seizing control of whole cities and well on their way to all of Libya. They kill captive prisoners and blame Gaddafi, beg for air assistance to cover their advances, and call us "like Gods" when we deliver. That's teamwork.

Anyway ... I suspect there's no exit strategy except through Gaddafi's guts. And this time, al Qaeda types might be more successful in helping us than they were 15 years ago. Go team us!

 

[leftysergeant]

The region has a strong Islamist influence and a history of support for the anti-Gaddafi and al Qaeda-affiliated Libyan Islamic Fighting Group. MI6 colluded witht them to assassinate Gaddafi in 1996, in part causing Gaddafi to be the first world leader to call for the arrest of Osama bin Laden back in 1998. Al Qaeda in Iraq documents seized show the largest number of recruits, per capita, in the whole Arab world, come from eastern Libya.

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?