|
Apology posted:Which, you're right, it's not the same as a veto, but it strongly implies that both the US and Germany will vote against a NFZ over Libya in both NATO and the UN. I'd prefer that they abstained. Don't "get sucked into a war in North Africa" if you don't want to, but at the same time, don't impede those that want to help. poo poo, isn't this what kept us out of Rwanda? Seriously, what's wrong with an African intervention, as opposed to say Iraq? Is foreign politics really about zero-sum games? Granted, I think Sarkozy wants a military action to divert the French people from his domestic issues and foreign policy fumbles, and a successful one would be akin to his Grenada or Falklands moment. What did Machiavelli say, "keep your wars short and spectacular"?
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 21:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
Apology posted:If only the world were as simple as a cowboy movie.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 21:59
|
|
|
There are a lot of Western media sources that make it sound like the revolutionaries aren't going to win this. Is there any truth to that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:17
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:There are a lot of Western media sources that make it sound like the revolutionaries aren't going to win this. Is there any truth to that? "This" being Libya? Extremely doubtful. Gaddafi doesn't have a leg to stand on. All he's doing now is salting the earth to spite the revolutionaries.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:19
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:There are a lot of Western media sources that make it sound like the revolutionaries aren't going to win this. Is there any truth to that? Namarrgon posted:A lot of people suddenly think Gaddafi is still going to win this? I think even if he was unchallenged militarily (he isn't, remember that most if not all of the rebel's military will be in the east, Zawiyah was relatively undefended) he simply doesn't have the manpower to retake Libya. It would be like the Netherlands trying to occupy Germany; sure our troops could take a big city maybe, but what if you want to take the next one? You have to move out and the former conquered city simply rebels.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:20
|
|
|
DNI Clapper (who, let's be honest, has no real power in the IC) said he thought Gaddafi would hold on and it's become the conventional wisdom since then. It's not completely off-base, but I still think he's wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
It pretty much completely depends on the definition of "win." Without Western aid, I could see Qaddafi using his technological advantage to preserve his current holdings and fend off rebel advances in the short term, and maybe even the long term. That said, I think Eastern Libya's pretty much permanently out of his reach at this point. Qaddafi's best hope at this time is leading some sort of Somaliland-esque rump state.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:23
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:It pretty much completely depends on the definition of "win." Without Western aid, I could see Qaddafi using his technological advantage to preserve his current holdings and fend off rebel advances in the short term, and maybe even the long term. That said, I think Eastern Libya's pretty much permanently out of his reach at this point. Qaddafi's best hope at this time is leading some sort of Somaliland-esque rump state. Also, what's going to happen when he pushes the rebels out of Libya? Attack Egypt and Tunisia, since their revolutions helped push Libya's? Also, with some of the humanitarian aid Egypt has been giving to eastern Libya, he could easily write that as a casus belli for an invasion of Egypt.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:31
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Also, what's going to happen when he pushes the rebels out of Libya? Attack Egypt and Tunisia, since their revolutions helped push Libya's? Also, with some of the humanitarian aid Egypt has been giving to eastern Libya, he could easily write that as a casus belli for an invasion of Egypt. In the hypothetical situation where Gaddafi can somehow get the resources and manpower to reconquer Libya he might just be insane enough to start a two-war front on Tunisia and Egypt. e. I doubt it though, he seems more like the type that if Libya was handed back to him he'd see it as a the natural outcome to his divine mandate to rule and continue to be the world's most hated eccentric. Namarrgon fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:42
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:There are a lot of Western media sources that make it sound like the revolutionaries aren't going to win this. Is there any truth to that? Pattter Song hit the nail on the head - it depends on what they mean exactly by "win." It's not going to be an easy victory, and a ton of people are going to die, and the country might end up being split in half for awhile, so it won't be a clear victory, but to say that Gaddafi is going to win isn't quite right. He'll win in the sense that if he can't have Libya, no one can (for a few years until they rebuild at least), but to say he'll win in that he'll stay in power is pretty farfetched. A similar analogy is the case of Charles Taylor (incidentally, he went to Libya and was trained in guerilla tactics by Gaddafi when he was on the run), and who is right now being tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. It took years of civil war to remove him from power, but he eventually was forced to resign after losing 2/3 of Liberia. Of course, there are significant differences, especially with regards to international intervention, but I'm just trying to point out how you can't expect a quick resolution of this. I think a lot of people saying that Gaddafi will win are comparing the revolution in Libya to that in Egypt or Tunisia since it was inspired/at the same time as those two, where the government was toppled after less than a month, even though the situation is radically different. Either that or the gains Gaddafi made (ignoring what he had to expend to get them) makes it look like he's going to take Libya back, which is also an unfair analysis. Narmi fucked around with this message at 22:54 on Mar 11, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 22:50
|
|
|
So Wikipedia estimates the pre-revolt Libyan military (army, navy, and air force) at ~120,000 people. Account for a big chunk of them defecting/deserting, and Qaddafi trying to replace them with conscripted immigrants and mercenaries, and let's take a guess of 90-100k loyal Qaddafi soldiers and mercenaries. (Probably too high a guess if anything). In a country as geographically large as Libya (even if sparsely populated), with the need to garrison a lot of your forces in "loyal" areas so that they won't revolt, and tying down other forces in areas they take from rebels militarily (you can bet that a good chunk of Qaddafi's forces are either in Tripoli or the recently-captured Zawiyah), and you rapidly start running into a manpower problem the further east you go. I simply don't think Qaddafi has the soldiers to retake and occupy the East. Again, I see the best-case scenario for him to rule a rump Tripolitania/"West Libya," which will quickly join Eritrea and North Korea on the list of the most pariah of pariah states.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Also, what's going to happen when he pushes the rebels out of Libya? Attack Egypt and Tunisia, since their revolutions helped push Libya's? Also, with some of the humanitarian aid Egypt has been giving to eastern Libya, he could easily write that as a casus belli for an invasion of Egypt. Libya vs. Egypt would be a hilariously one-sided fight. And I think the best outcome he could possibly reach in Libya is the division of Libya, with west being renamed to Qaddafi Republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:00
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Also, what's going to happen when he pushes the rebels out of Libya? Attack Egypt and Tunisia, since their revolutions helped push Libya's? Also, with some of the humanitarian aid Egypt has been giving to eastern Libya, he could easily write that as a casus belli for an invasion of Egypt. You've basically described what Idi Amin did (and what led to his downfall). e: Also Idi Amin got military help from Gaddafi and fled to Libya. That guy gets around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:08
|
|
|
Ham posted:Libya vs. Egypt would be a hilariously one-sided fight. And I think the best outcome he could possibly reach in Libya is the division of Libya, with west being renamed to Qaddafi Republic. If there's gonna be a division just bring back the old names of Tripolitania and Cyrenaica.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2011 23:14
|
|
|
Ben Wedeman was just on CNN describing what sounds like a pretty hasty retreat by rebel groups. This weekend could be pretty ugly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:So Wikipedia estimates the pre-revolt Libyan military (army, navy, and air force) at ~120,000 people. Account for a big chunk of them defecting/deserting, and Qaddafi trying to replace them with conscripted immigrants and mercenaries, and let's take a guess of 90-100k loyal Qaddafi soldiers and mercenaries. (Probably too high a guess if anything). In a country as geographically large as Libya (even if sparsely populated), with the need to garrison a lot of your forces in "loyal" areas so that they won't revolt, and tying down other forces in areas they take from rebels militarily (you can bet that a good chunk of Qaddafi's forces are either in Tripoli or the recently-captured Zawiyah), and you rapidly start running into a manpower problem the further east you go. I simply don't think Qaddafi has the soldiers to retake and occupy the East. Again, I see the best-case scenario for him to rule a rump Tripolitania/"West Libya," which will quickly join Eritrea and North Korea on the list of the most pariah of pariah states. Exactly with Libya being a lot larger than Iraq. A military that is way worse than the US. It would take us 250k to do what Qaddifi wants to do. I hope they are ok in Ras Lunuf
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 02:06
|
|
|
Wasn't Ras Lunuf retaken then abandoned by the rebels? It's been traded hands at least a couple times over the past few days.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 02:12
|
|
|
Young Freud posted:Wasn't Ras Lunuf retaken then abandoned by the rebels? It's been traded hands at least a couple times over the past few days. Whenever Ghadaffi's troops rolled in with tanks and heavy equipment, the Rebels pulled out because they didn't have a lot that could deal with it. Then Ghadaffi's troops would pull out before the Rebels could counterattack and overrun them during the night.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 02:38
|
|
|
Plus they were being attack from land, sea and air. I'd imagine that Ras Lanuf is going to trade hands a few more times until it's safe for them to move forward.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 03:32
|
|
|
The Arab League is meeting today, they will be voting on whether or not to recognise the rebels, and whether to support a no-fly zone. Sounds like the situation in Ras Lanuf is back and forth fighting, although there's been reports in Benghazi of explosions as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 10:45
|
|
|
AJE has reported Brega has fallen to the Gaddafi forces, seems like the rebels are getting hosed. Thanks for your help, international community.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 13:08
|
|
|
Is a no fly zone even going to help by that point?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 13:49
|
|
|
Brown Moses posted:AJE has reported Brega has fallen to the Gaddafi forces, seems like the rebels are getting hosed. Thanks for your help, international community.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 13:58
|
|
|
Gaddafi released the 3 Dutch navy troops by the way*. Greek viceminister of foreign affairs Dimitros Dolis (I'm not exactly sure why Greece was the dominant voice in the negotiations instead of the Netherlands) remarked that it was more difficult than negotiating with the Taliban. *Last Thursday but I only noticed the news report that they are already home right now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 14:22
|
|
|
I can't imagine what the thought process is with the Western leadership right now. You amp up the rhetoric against Qaddafi, basically call for his overthrow, and in France's case even shift recognition. How can you possibly think it's a good idea to then let him undo all of the rebel's gains? Will it be better to help the rebels militarily now, or deal with the enduring shitstorm of a victorious Qaddafi?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 15:17
|
|
|
Al Jazeera Arabic reporter in Brega has just confirmed that Brega and Al Uqaylah are still in the hands of the revolutionaries. He described the situation as being tough and that the ongoing battles are happening in an 80km desert stretch between Al Uqaylah and Ras Lanouf. This stretch has no areas for refuge or protection and is proving difficult for both sides to make ground. We have made an animated map to illustrate the situation:
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 15:28
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:I can't imagine what the thought process is with the Western leadership right now. You amp up the rhetoric against Qaddafi, basically call for his overthrow, and in France's case even shift recognition. How can you possibly think it's a good idea to then let him undo all of the rebel's gains? Will it be better to help the rebels militarily now, or deal with the enduring shitstorm of a victorious Qaddafi? I would guess that the longer they with, the more the fighting is going to intensify, which would require more intervention, thus making it less likely that they'll help the rebels. I hope I'm wrong, and I realize the situation shifts very quickly from on side holding the upper hand to the other, but it's looking more likely that Gaddafi is slowly going to make more gains. Toplowtech posted:After Yugoslavia and Rwanda, are you really surprised? I was honestly expecting that the people in charge would use that as a case for intervention instead of just sitting back and watching a massacre. It seems like the only lesson learnt was that if you don't try, you can't fail.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 15:48
|
|
|
A bit of hope:quote:15:01 Omani Foreign minister Youssef bin Alawi bin Abdullah has called for “Arab intervention” in Libya during the Arab League meeting today. He said the Libyan crisis poses a threat to the stability of Arab states. “What is needed now is Arab intervention using mechanisms of the Arab League and at the same time in accordance with international law.” I hope they mean military intervention and not just sending more aid. Both are needed, but one more than the other at this point. Gaddafi's air force remains unchallenged, and his navy is happily bombarding away at cities.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 15:56
|
|
|
What arab countries would even be able to intervene? Egypt is the only one that comes to mind but they have their own problems to take care of. France might do it, even without international consent.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 16:51
|
|
|
IM_DA_DECIDER posted:What arab countries would even be able to intervene? Egypt is the only one that comes to mind but they have their own problems to take care of. That would be ballsy. Can Sarkozy really afford the possibility of casualties?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 17:01
|
|
|
Well this is good news (from AJE):quote:6:08pm e: It wasn't unanimous however, quote:17:41 Leaked: The Arab League countries expressed their backing for a No Fly Zone in Libya apart from Syria, Algeria and Yemen. Sudan expressed reservations but did not completely reject the motion. This information has been leaked from the Arab League meeting that is currently taking place in Cairo. I heard Yemen was against this, but it's not surprising that Algeria and Syria (the latter is said to be providing Gaddafi with pilots, but that might be just a rumour) are against intervention since they have their leaders have their own problems to deal with, and this would act against them in the long run. Narmi fucked around with this message at 17:39 on Mar 12, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 17:34
|
|
|
TheBalor posted:That would be ballsy. Can Sarkozy really afford the possibility of casualties?
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 17:38
|
|
|
One of Al Jazeera's cameramen (Qatari it seems) just died in an ambush near Benghazi. One other journalist was slightly injured. Just how safe is Benghazi from Qaddafi forces? It's unclear right now who or how many people fired at the journalists.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 20:12
|
|
|
The Cheshire Cat posted:"This" being Libya? Extremely doubtful. Gaddafi doesn't have a leg to stand on. All he's doing now is salting the earth to spite the revolutionaries. Plus Gaddafi has made a lot of enemies at this point and his lack of sanity doesn't help. At best he's an opportunist gently caress who is finally getting what is coming to his sad rear end, and at worst he's a lunatic loving with oil and people. None of these points to anybody coming to help him. If he's not being burned alive on a pile of the corpses of his children, he'll be considered lucky. There is nobody alive that's quite as hosed as Gaddafi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 20:19
|
|
|
Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:There is nobody alive that's quite as hosed as Gaddafi.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 20:30
|
|
|
Mad Doctor Cthulhu posted:There is nobody alive that's quite as hosed as Gaddafi. He's only as hosed as long as his ego keeps him in the country. Not being a target of American interest, he could literally retire where-ever he wants.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 20:36
|
|
|
Jack Napier posted:He's only as hosed as long as his ego keeps him in the country. Not being a target of American interest, he could literally retire where-ever he wants. Of course his ego is so insurmountably huge that the only place he's going to retire is six feet underneath the Libyan soil. He's willing to try to literally murder every other person in the country rather than leave gracefully and retire to a life of luxury. It's not the money that matters to him, it's the power. He wants to be king of Libya forever. (Yes I know his title isn't "king". But he acts like one)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 20:42
|
|
|
Jack Napier posted:He's only as hosed as long as his ego keeps him in the country. Not being a target of American interest, he could literally retire where-ever he wants. Not really. Over the course of his reign he pissed off many of the usual dictator havens (S. Arabia hates his guts, for example, and they were willing to take in people like Idi Amin). If he did flee, especially at this point (mass-murder in front of the world's cameras doesn't go over too well), he'd have to go to a real shithole like Burkina Faso.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 21:11
|
|
|
Patter Song posted:Not really. Over the course of his reign he pissed off many of the usual dictator havens (S. Arabia hates his guts, for example, and they were willing to take in people like Idi Amin). If he did flee, especially at this point (mass-murder in front of the world's cameras doesn't go over too well), he'd have to go to a real shithole like Burkina Faso. Depends on how much money he still has in possession.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 21:15
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 12:15 |
|
|
skander posted:Many of his forced conscripts are pretty hosed. Ha ha! Patter Song posted:Not really. Over the course of his reign he pissed off many of the usual dictator havens (S. Arabia hates his guts, for example, and they were willing to take in people like Idi Amin). If he did flee, especially at this point (mass-murder in front of the world's cameras doesn't go over too well), he'd have to go to a real shithole like Burkina Faso. I think he's going to get thrown to the rebels and end up being tortured to death along with the rest of his family. At this point with his insanity and the way various countries are freezing his wealth and turning away his family, you can tell this is going to be one of those 'shame it happened (but don't expect us to do a drat thing for that motherfucker)' moments in world history. Mussolini is a good example, but we might need one for this new century.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2011 21:17
|
|