|
THE HORSES rear end posted:Pakistan's civilian government is sane, and it's only their opinion that really matters when it comes to the War in Afghanistan. Um. Unless Pakistan's public does what Egypt's public or Libya's public did, sure.
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 21:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
Xandu posted:It's impossible to overstate how big of a deal the Raymond Davis is over there. That's what he said.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 21:52
|
|
|
Tadhg posted:While some rebels are claiming that pro-Gaddafi troops haven't fully claimed the town, I'd be amazed if there was any meaningful resistance left in the town after the recent offensive push by Gaddafi's forces. They need armor and artillery of their own. You can't win in open desert ground warfare without it. New Division fucked around with this message at 21:55 on Mar 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 21:53
|
|
|
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2011/03/2011310101413705407.html Clinton to meet Libyan rebels quote:Hillary Clinton, the US secretary of state, is to meet with leaders of Libya's opposition council during a trip to the Middle East next week, she has told US lawmakers. Next week might be too late if they don't install UN no fly zones or support. But it's a pretty straight forward declaration of support.  That's some mad max poo poo right there. Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 22:09 on Mar 10, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 22:06
|
|
|
New Division posted:They need armor and artillery of their own. You can't win in open desert ground warfare without it. From the Guardian's Live blog: quote:The rebel movement in eastern Libya said it did not see any problem over obtaining more weapons. Mustafa Gheriani, media officer for the rebel National Libyan Council in Benghazi, said: "Our military committee is assessing what we need. A no-fly zone will be great, but our troops will also be facing tanks. We will see whether we need to make [arms] purchases. I do not see getting arms as an issue. Qatar and many other countries have offered to help." Granted, it doesn't sound like he's talking about tanks/artillery, but it's still something.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
I really hope we don't give anyone weapons. That trick always bites us on the rear end later.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:20
|
|
|
Deacon Blues posted:I really hope we don't give anyone weapons. That trick always bites us on the rear end later. Also, their position is in no significant danger in the short-term, given how much time it took Gaddhafi to capture Zawiyah. And a big factor in that was the inability of the rebels to receive supplies and reinforcements. Stop freaking out people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:27
|
|
|
From the BBC's Libya Revolt live blog today: "2116: The US says it will closely monitor the situation in Saudi Arabia. From White House deputy national security advisor Ben Rhodes: "What we have said to the Saudis and to all the people of the region is that we're going to support a set of universal values in any country in the region and that includes the right to peaceful assembly, to peaceful protests, to peaceful speech." Lip service to "liberty" in order to look good on the international stage, or do you think the U.S. would actually run the economic risk of sanctioning Saudi Arabia or even intervening on humanitarian ground?
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:28
|
|
|
It would take quite a lot for the US, or any other country, to even consider doing that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:29
|
|
|
US Director of National Intelligence says Gaddafi will prevail. Outside help could change that though. Click the link for details. In somewhat related news, Clapper (the DNI) has been asked to resign by Senator Graham over statements that China (along with Russia) is our greatest strategic threat. http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/10/director_national_intelligence_china_poses_greatest_threat_to_us.html http://realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/03/10/sen_graham_calls_on_dni_clapper_to_resign.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:31
|
|
|
From The GuardianThe Guardian posted:Nato was left paralysed as the US joined Germany in blocking the imposition of a no-fly zone supported by Britain and France. Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, said at a meeting of Nato defence ministers in Brussels that contingency planning for a no-fly zone would continue, before adding "that's the extent of it". What the gently caress? I thought Obama had said "all options are on the table". Why is the US (and germany) blocking this? I mean, Gates' position seems to be clear - that imposing no-fly means airstrikes on ground-based anti-air defenses - but that's not the same thing as ruling out no-fly zones entirely, or blocking the English/French plan. And meanwhile (from the same article): The Guardian posted:The differences within the EU came as the US director of national intelligence, James Clapper, told Congress the rebels may face defeat because Gaddafi's forces are considerably better equipped. Clapper told the Senate's armed services committee the insurgents were in for a "tough roll" and in the longer term "the regime will prevail". He said: "We believe Gaddafi is in this for the long haul. He appears to be hunkering down for the duration." So here's a US official telling congress that Ghaddafi "will prevail". He's already calling it. And he went on to avoid questions from congressmen about whether that implies we need to hurry the gently caress up and help with a no-fly zone. I've been vocal previously about how a NFZ isn't all that easy to just do, but I think we're continuing to see a lot of uncoordinated statements between various US officials, in particular Obama, Clinton, Gates, and now Clapper. The president needs to get his people on the same loving page. This is embarrassing and massively harmful to the people in these countries who need to know whether they're going to get international support, or be hung out to dry, in both the short and long term.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:34
|
|
|
Some simple man-portable modern ATGM's would be sufficient to stem Gaddafi's armoured attacks on the rebel cities. If head-on attacks resulted in burning T-72's, it would force them to have infantry lead the way. Artillery would then be the biggest problem. Libyan army has some 400 French MILAN missile launchers (there's also Soviet AT-3, AT-4 and AT-5 but they're not so good), and presumably some have fallen in the rebels hands. These are 1970's technology but they're still very accurate and powerful weapons. Not sure which type of missile Libyans have, the oldest ones are not nearly as effective as the latest ones, but even then I think it would be sufficient. Libyan T-72's don't have the latest upgrades, I think (Libya made a deal about this with Russia in 2010 but it's so recent that I doubt it had even started yet). Milan does have a little weakness, though - it has a minimum range of 400 meters (due to the way the optics work), but this isn't so much of a problem in Libya. Maximum range is 4 km, beyond the range where T-72's can return effective fire. France could probably supply the rebels with plenty more MILAN launchers and more modern missiles, as well as training in their use. I think training is the biggest hurdle right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:37
|
|
|
StickySweater posted:US Director of National Intelligence says Gaddafi will prevail. Outside help could change that though. Click the link for details. The NSA, Donilon, is getting a lot of poo poo for his remarks on Clapper's statement, but I think he's right. Clapper's analysis was poo poo and while Gaddafi is in it for the long haul, he doesn't have a lot of options. http://www.cnas.org/blogs/abumuqawama/2011/03/quote-day-what-do-you-pay-us-edition.html posted:MR. DONILON: Well ... I guess I'd answer -- I would answer -- I would answer it this way: that if you did a static and one-dimensional assessment of just looking at order of battle and mercenaries, right, you came come to various conclusions about the various advantages that the Gadhafi regime and the opposition has. edit: Don't even get me started on his remarks about Russia/China...
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:45
|
|
|
StickySweater posted:In somewhat related news, Clapper (the DNI) has been asked to resign by Senator Graham over statements that China (along with Russia) is our greatest strategic threat. The mind boggles. Watching the first video, I can understand Clapper's perspective: his job, day in and day out, is to assess the capabilities of other countries. And while (as he said) we have START with Russia, we have no such anti-proliferation treaty with China, who is of course a (massively) nuclear-armed country. But. But. You don't sit there in a loving publicly-broadcast, reported-around-the-world meeting with Congress and state, as a US military/intelligence official, that you thing China has the intent of attacking the US. You could see him kind of starting to backpedal a little at the end there, talking about how his job is to assess threat and he can't really say what a country's intent is (no kidding, for that matter most countries can't easily be said to have a singular "intent", since they're made up of people with different intentions and agendas that often compete with each other), but it doesn't matter. The soundbite that's going to be played all over the world, is going to go along with the headline "US Regards China Its Biggest Enemy". I hate to agree with Senator Graham, but that guy needs to be publicly and noisily fired by Obama, and his statements clearly and unambiguously repudiated. The last thing we need right now is to antagonize our most important trade partner and the largest holder of US debt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:46
|
|
|
Xandu posted:It would take quite a lot for the US, or any other country, to even consider doing that. I know, which is why I found it curious that the U.S. was even making the slightest hint of disapproving of the Saudi crackdown on protesters. Leperflesh posted:U.S. and Germany say No to the No-Fly Zone 
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:47
|
|
|
I'm somewhat put at easy that even someone who is the director of National Intelligence of the world's premier military power can be so breathtakingly wrong. Unless of course he has access to information we don't (almost certainly) and he has a good reason to think so (still no good reason to publicly announce it) and he turns out to be right. Boy will my face be red! Not going to happen though. Gaddafi can't win this any more. Unless he has Bond-superweapons like hidden nukes or orbital lasers or a secret superarmy he's done for, it's just a matter of time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:50
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:I've been vocal previously about how a NFZ isn't all that easy to just do I'd say that the US's previous success in destroying Iraqi air defenses without casualty is proof enough that modern stealth technology coupled with anti-radar missiles and smart bombs is enough to establish a NFZ with minimal risk. Of course that's only if the US fully commits, which given their position as of late is unlikely to happen.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:52
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:I'd say that the US's previous success in destroying Iraqi air defenses without casualty is proof enough that modern stealth technology coupled with anti-radar missiles and smart bombs is enough to establish a NFZ with minimal risk. Of course that's only if the US fully commits, which given their position as of late is unlikely to happen. That's without coalition casualty. I'm sure lots of Iraqis were killed. Which is my concern, really. The first time we hit a building that's marked on our intelligence maps as being an anti-aircraft emplacement, but it turns out is in rebel hands and/or was being used as a temporary hospital for sick orphans or whatever, we'll have a problem. Which is of course part of the calculus of the whole thing. Not just "can we do it" but "can we do it without killing innocent Libyans". Along with (probably more important to US officials) "can we do it without giving real and significant political ammunition to other dictators regarding US interventionism/colonialism/imperialism". We do not want to help Libyan rebels in the short term by using methods that, say, wind up preventing an Iranian revolution down the line.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:55
|
|
|
I guarantee you if we weren't spending so much money on military campaigns in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, instituting a no fly zone above Libya wouldn't be much of a problem. It's not just the current cost of instituting a no fly zone, it's the future prospects. What happens if the No Fly Zone happens and the Gadaffi forces begin to advance? We'll be forced to send in troops. There are so many possible contingencies beneath the surface of just "Well - institute a no fly zone. Case closed" It's really expensive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2011 23:57
|
|
|
Tadhg posted:A Degtyaryov "record player"? They're hauling out the old iron I see.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:00
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:"can we do it without giving real and significant political ammunition to other dictators regarding US interventionism/colonialism/imperialism". This is likely why the US is taking the position they are. There's enough bad blood and fury at the US for past events. Sivias posted:It's not just the current cost of instituting a no fly zone, it's the future prospects. What happens if the No Fly Zone happens and the Gadaffi forces begin to advance? We'll be forced to send in troops. I don't follow your logic there, could you explain how a ground advancement following a US led NFZ would obligate the US to send in ground forces? Amandyke fucked around with this message at 00:04 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:02
|
|
|
Sivias posted:It's not just the current cost of instituting a no fly zone, it's the future prospects. What happens if the No Fly Zone happens and the Gadaffi forces begin to advance? We'll be forced to send in troops. I don't think there's any scenario here that would "force" the US to send in troops. However. What if we impose a NFZ and the libyan civil war grinds to a stalemate that lasts for months... or years? When do we call a halt? How much can we spend, in money, equipment, and political capital, before we draw a line and say we're taking down the NFZ? And here's another possibility. Suppose we help the rebels, they defeat Ghaddafi in glorious revolution... and then impose a new regime which we find repugnant? Like, some military leader that flipped to the rebels takes over, or they create a hardcore islamist state, or they are really regressive in regards to women's rights. There's a certain amount of "you broke it you bought it" that happens (certainly happened in afghanistan) and we have to seriously consider this stuff. It's too easy to get jubilant about huddled masses yearning to be free and their patriotic struggle for liberation in the face of a madman and his evil forces of darkness. Which I am. I am totally on the side of the libyan freedom-fighters. But I'm really glad I'm not in a position to have to face the consequences, if we intervene and things go wrong. I can commiserate with the people who are. I hope they do their soul-searching and decide that, despite the risks, we have to help, because I don't know if the libyan people can do it on their own at this point, and if they suffer ongoing losses, they might lose heart.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:03
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:I'd say that the US's previous success in destroying Iraqi air defenses without casualty is proof enough that modern stealth technology coupled with anti-radar missiles and smart bombs is enough to establish a NFZ with minimal risk. Of course that's only if the US fully commits, which given their position as of late is unlikely to happen. I posted an article on it earlier, but there's an idea that a NFZ does not have to include all of Libya, just enough of it to discourage pilots from going beyond a safe zone into the east, or even taking off at all. quote:The secretary of defense, Robert Gates, has said that a no-fly zone would be “a big operation in a big country” and would begin with an attack on Libyan air defense systems. But General McPeak said that the no-fly zone would be imposed over those parts of the country that Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi doesn’t control. That may remove the need to take out air defense systems pre-emptively, he said. And, in any case, he noted that the United States operated a no-fly zone over Iraq for more than a decade without systematically eradicating all Iraqi air defense systems in that time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:05
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:A Degtyaryov "record player"? They're hauling out the old iron I see. Looks like a frizbee launcher to me, Libyans love ultimate and disc golf.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:07
|
|
|
Well, my point was simply If A then B. Let's say the Gaddafi ground force succeeds in pushing east and taking ground despite a no fly zone and air support. If the rebellion is put down, what will it mean to keep a NFZ on a sovereign nation? We wouldn't be able to let that happen, so if Gaddafi begins to make a lot of ground it must be stopped. The only way to stop it would be to fight it with our own ground forces. e: I'm not saying it would happen, or is at all likely. But these sort of possible contingencies must be considered before taking such drastic actions. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. \/\/\/ Exactly. Sivias fucked around with this message at 00:15 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:09
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Well, my point was simply If A then B. Ah, I get you. We'd either have to escalate, or give up and admit defeat and go home. Either option would be political disaster for whichever president had to make that decision.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:14
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Well, my point was simply If A then B. The beauty if a NFZ is that you now have Air Superiority. We'd have no need for boots on the ground when the rebels could simply radio in enemy troop movements and fighter bombers could then decimate the enemy. Being unchallenged in the air is a hell of a thing.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Looks like we have our first hat contender over in Libya. Courtesy of the Guardian
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:15
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:The beauty if a NFZ is that you now have Air Superiority. We'd have no need for boots on the ground when the rebels could simply radio in enemy troop movements and fighter bombers could then decimate the enemy. Being unchallenged in the air is a hell of a thing. Yes, Air superiority and all of our technology is very good - but you must also consider what a NFZ means politically. It would be a direct sign that we are not only on the side of the protesters, but we will actively assist them in their cause. We have to consider the rest of the nations around the region who are all participating in similar protests. The ripples extend beyond cognition. What happens when a nation overthrows it's government and is upset that we didn't help them in their time of need? There are so many contingencies.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:19
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:The beauty if a NFZ is that you now have Air Superiority. We'd have no need for boots on the ground when the rebels could simply radio in enemy troop movements and fighter bombers could then decimate the enemy. Being unchallenged in the air is a hell of a thing. So we're seeing.  How likely is it that individual countries could opt to enforce a NFZ on their own, without the NATO/UN green light?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:21
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:The beauty if a NFZ is that you now have Air Superiority. We'd have no need for boots on the ground when the rebels could simply radio in enemy troop movements and fighter bombers could then decimate the enemy. Being unchallenged in the air is a hell of a thing. How do we establish secure, authenticated communications with the rebels on the ground? How do we make sure Ghaddafi forces don't call in posing as rebels and ordering airstrikes on orphanages and hospitals? The answer is with military coordinators trained in such operations, on the ground, embedded with rebel troops, and risking their lives. And support networks for them. Logistics. Communications. Etc. It's complex. I agree you can impose a simple no fly zone fairly unilaterally. But fighting a proxy war is difficult and messy. We fought one in afghanistan by arming and supporting the Northern Alliance, but we did not and could not have done it without US troops on the ground, although we did limit the scope and number of those troops for a long time (and the result was a ten-year afghanistani quagmire).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Is there a good hash tag twitter source, or twitter-er to follow the protests in Saudi Arabia?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Tadhg posted:How likely is it that individual countries could opt to enforce a NFZ on their own, without the NATO/UN green light? Highly unlikely. That said it would be an interesting turn of events to see if the UN would then scramble to backup said country in their efforts. Not that it would happen (and it would open up some kind of can of worms) but I'd love to see Israel do it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Amandyke posted:Highly unlikely. That said it would be an interesting turn of events to see if the UN would then scramble to backup said country in their efforts. Not that it would happen (and it would open up some kind of can of worms) but I'd love to see Israel do it. Jesus wept. If Israel sent fighter planes into libya to make airstrikes and shoot down (arabic, muslim) fighters, I think it'd spark off a full-scale middle-eastern war. Short of deploying nuclear weapons, I can't think of a worse possible development.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:29
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:What the gently caress? I thought Obama had said "all options are on the table". Why is the US (and germany) blocking this? I mean, Gates' position seems to be clear - that imposing no-fly means airstrikes on ground-based anti-air defenses - but that's not the same thing as ruling out no-fly zones entirely, or blocking the English/French plan. Speaking of Germany, quote:Merkel surprised at French recognition of Libya opposition source While she's not outright saying it, the undertone that it's a bad idea is there. Hopefully other European sountries won't be as reluctant as Germany. In the meantime, Gadhafi continues to sell petrol to German drivers: quote:While Colonel Moammar Gadhafi continues to hang onto power in Libya, the United Nations and the European Union hope to choke him into submission through sanctions. But Gadhafi still has income sources in Germany. source
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:31
|
|
|
Tadhg posted: 
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:37
|
|
|
Curious minds want to enquire, if the Sarkozy government goes fully in support of the Libyan opposition and they fall, how much of an egg to face would that be for him?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:38
|
|
|
Sivias posted:Well, my point was simply If A then B. Against Western Air superiority, conventional military victory is implausible if not outright impossible. Especially considering that they aren't doing so well already.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:42
|
|
|
Nenonen posted:Curious minds want to enquire, if the Sarkozy government goes fully in support of the Libyan opposition and they fall, how much of an egg to face would that be for him? My guess is that the French will say something like he was the only one who recognized a democratic movement in Libya and tried to help while other world leaders sat around twiddling their thumbs until it was too late. The other countries who didn't recognize the opposition as being valid failed in their duty to uphold the virtues of freedom and democracy that they claim they uphold for everyone. Or at least that's how I'd play it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:43
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 17:03 |
|
|
davebo posted:I was hoping somebody would run with that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 00:45
|
|