|
You people are seriously overestimating the ability of the rebel forces http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/newsdesk/2011/03/libya-where-is-america.html#ixzz1GgOU3RQO They are untrained, lack basic discipline, and generally don't know what the gently caress they are doing. To think that air strikes alone will pave the way for them to retake the country is a fantasy. At best it will prevent government forces from advancing. But, in order to do this, you need observers on the ground that can differentiate them from civilians. Cue ground deployment of JTACs, forward air observers, ANGLICOs, etc. The rebels are also are going to need US Special Forces to hand-hold them just to defend what territory they have, let alone to advance and retake territory. Cue additional requirement for special operation forces, and probably a significant amount if you need to partner with literally thousands of rebel forces Plus, any air campaign is going to want to have combat search and rescue capability and a QRF. Except that now it will have to potentially go toe-to-toe with a conventional force vice insurgents. Cue battalion sized ground deployment. I think everyone here is seriously underestimating what any sort of US intervention is going to take Happydayz fucked around with this message at 04:31 on Mar 18, 2011 |
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
It will be hard for the rebels to push out of Benghazi. I'd be poo poo-scared of being mistaken for Gad forces. A lot of the revolutionaries have taken up captured military uniforms/vehicles, and there is also the defected Gad forces. They're probably hunkering down and staying out of the way for a while, I'd hope.Happydayz posted:You people are seriously overestimating the ability of the rebel forces On the contrary I think the majorty of the rebel forces are just young rebels fighting back and are untrained as you say, but I also think there are organized leaders taking charge from ex-military or the military defectors. They have also organized the rebels to be back-up/support groups- providing supplies and intel, from what I've read. Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 04:32 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:30
|
|
|
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ Yeah, the problem is that you don't turn a rabble of untrained men into professionals capable of fighting well in a few weeks. It usually takes at least a few months to set up a functional military force, and they're doing it on the fly. It's gonna be a few weeks at the very least before they move forward again, especially if ex-military dudes are finally in charge. This would also be the Eurofighter's first big combat deployment if I am not mistaken.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:32
|
|
|
Competition posted:The Muslim hive-mind's anger will be fierce when this ripples through. It's not the Muslim hive mind you doofus, it's that many Muslims in western Europe, especially France, come from North Africa. While the appearance and form of European intervention stir the anti-Imperialist sentiment there are cultural ties as well as religious to the groups in Free Libya. I'm wondering how that plays, or if the obvious disconnect between the response in Libya vs Bahrain kills any appreciation of the benefit from action. And Happydayz you're wrong.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
New Division posted:This would also be the Eurofighter's first big combat deployment if I am not mistaken. It would be unfortunate to discover that they melt when exposed to rain water.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
Lascivious Sloth posted:On the contrary I think the majorty of the rebel forces are just young rebels fighting back and are untrained as you say, but I also think there are organized leaders taking charge from ex-military or the military defectors. They have also organized the rebels to be back-up/support groups- providing supplies and intel, from what I've read. Read the article, there were few if any defecting Libyan military near the frontlines. And honestly - it would be even worse if there were. Continually improving your defensive position is a basic tenant while on the defense. Hanging out in the open smoking cigarettes while you know you are about to be attacked is beyond amateur hour to the point of negligence.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:34
|
|
|
Devian666 posted:It would be unfortunate to discover that they melt when exposed to rain water. Hey, it's not the F-22! 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:35
|
|
|
Every Libyan citizen has to serve 6-12 months in the military, the rebels were also bolstered by defecting standing military and were able to take drat near every town and did in fact hold them against assaults initially. Sustained Air Assaults (most likely when Gaddaffi removed the "loyal" pilots who kept missing with their bombing runs) and heavy weaponry eventually pushed them back. Part of the reason why they had trouble holding territory was because of a lack of a unified/centralised command combined with the fact that their advances to the door of Tripoli came quicker than the US invasion took to get to Iraq, they didn't have the drat time to dig in. Now they're being armed with western weapons by Egypt, the loyal forces are going to lose their numbers, equipment, and superiority.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:The rebels are also are going to need US Special Forces to hand-hold them just to defend what territory they have, let alone to advance and retake territory Clearly neither the UK nor France have any sort of special forces of their own (recent embarrasment with the SAS not withstanding :P)
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:36
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:Read the article, there were few if any defecting Libyan military near the frontlines. That article is dated 4 days ago. Since then we have learnt that the defecting forces have been reorganizing and only recently stated they had setup defence in Benghazi ready to fight to their deaths. I also think you underestimate the effectiveness of untrained guerrilla forces in an urban environment, and hit-and-run tactics that rebel forces are using. Now imagine they have no artillery, airforce or heavy armor tanks. I can't see Gad forces winning, especially not in urban environments, the only refuge Gad forces have now that there is a NFZ. Lascivious Sloth fucked around with this message at 04:42 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:39
|
|
|
Competition posted:Every Libyan citizen has to serve 6-12 months in the military, the rebels were also bolstered by defecting standing military and were able to take drat near every town and did in fact hold them against assaults initially. This again is incorrect. The Libyan airforce are dropping dumb bombs and not exactly highly trained. Do you really think that their air power was effective? How many rebels do you think actually died or were wounded by Libyan air power? Read the New Yorker article I posted - the effectiveness of Libyan air power was not in its actual kinetic effects, but rather through the incompetence/negligence of the rebels. As for not having the time to dig in - please. Digging a fighting position takes almost no time at all. quote:I also think you underestimate the effectiveness of untrained guerrilla forces in an urban environment they are generally terrible. I wouldn't try bringing up the Iraq or Afghan experience - hint - they were trained. What people are also neglecting to mention is the near requirement to deploy western ground forces, or of what kind of timeframe they are hoping for. Even if you achieve a stalemate and the rebels do not lose Benghazi, it will be a long, long time for them to actually retake the country absent a coup against Gadaffi quote:Now imagine they have no artillery, airforce or heavy armor tanks. I can't see Gad forces winning, especially not in urban environments, the only refuge Gad forces have now that there is a NFZ. trained light infantry force vs untrained armed civilians with no command and control. Sounds pretty simple to me. Also not sure why you think urban environments are a savior to the rebels - guess where western air power is least effective?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:44
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:
 Libya has 18 months conscription.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:trained light infantry force vs untrained armed civilians with no command and control. Sounds pretty simple to me. "Every Libyan citizen has to serve 6-12 months in the military" ...or possibly 18, I can't verify which number is accurate at the moment and it doesn't really matter. Either they're roughly equally trained or not. the amount of trained elite forced Qaddafi has is going to be severely limited and he needs them covering important areas, like, for example, Tripoli. You need to be less concerned with simplifying everything until it fits into your preconceptions.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:47
|
|
|
farraday posted:It's not the Muslim hive mind you doofus, it's that many Muslims in western Europe, especially France, come from North Africa. While the appearance and form of European intervention stir the anti-Imperialist sentiment there are cultural ties as well as religious to the groups in Free Libya. I'm wondering how that plays, or if the obvious disconnect between the response in Libya vs Bahrain kills any appreciation of the benefit from action. This is not an imperialist act of conquest, this is an officially internationally sanctioned intervention to prevent pro-democracy rebels being genocided, the West has remained very hands off all these protests until it got to this point. The Arab revolutions are incredibly popular amongst Muslims in Europe and they have been calling for the West to stop Gaddaffi from slaughtering civilians for some time now. Muslims have far more legitimate reasons to be angry with the West, one of them is the West's propping up of these dictators. P.S. The origin of most of these Angry hate the West Boogeymen migrant Muslims is Pakistani, the ones from the North Africa are pretty much the most liberal ones going after the ones of European origin (excluding Chechnya).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:48
|
|
|
Competition posted:This is not an imperialist act of conquest, this is an officially internationally sanctioned intervention to prevent pro-democracy rebels being genocided, the West has remained very hands off all these protests until it got to this point. I hadn't noticed mass calls by European Muslims to step in, but I admit I hadn't been looking for them either. And if it's imperialist or not hardly matters to perception of imperialism now does it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:50
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:trained light infantry force vs untrained armed civilians with no command and control. Sounds pretty simple to me. A) Portions of the Libyan army have mutinied and are supposedly running the show in the area now. Why do you think they're less well trained than the pro-Gaddhafi forces? B) The Libyan Army isn't exactly the SAS in the first place. I'm sure they're better trained than random civilians, but not necessarily by much, and the locals have the advantage of knowing their home ground. C) UN airstrikes won't be terribly effective in close-quarters urban combat, but on the other hand if you hold that the rebels' problem is that the loyalists have more armour, urban combat is exactly the best place to offset that advantage. Firing an RPG into the back of a tank doesn't take that much training, and it's a lot easier to achieve in a city than a desert. The UN, on the other hand, can blow the gently caress out of reinforcement convoys heading to the city through those nice empty desert motorways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
farraday posted:You need to be less concerned with simplifying everything until it fits into your preconceptions. So why don't you provide your analysis of how this all unfolds? I'm pretty much on record here: http://forums.somethingawful.com/showthread.php?threadid=3397841 absent a coup/decapitation, significant long-term investment in military power if we decide to go through with this. quote:A) Portions of the Libyan army have mutinied and are supposedly running the show in the area now. Why do you think they're less well trained than the pro-Gaddhafi forces? And where is the evidence that they are operating in formations and having a battlefield effect? quote:B) The Libyan Army isn't exactly the SAS in the first place. I'm sure they're better trained than random civilians, but not necessarily by much, and the locals have the advantage of knowing their home ground. which points to a protracted stalemate which gets back to my original point - this is likely not going to be a cakewalk and will take a significant expenditure just to maintain the status quo, let alone achieve a rollback. Happydayz fucked around with this message at 04:56 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:52
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:This again is incorrect. The Libyan airforce are dropping dumb bombs and not exactly highly trained. Do you really think that their air power was effective? How many rebels do you think actually died or were wounded by Libyan air power? Read the New Yorker article I posted - the effectiveness of Libyan air power was not in its actual kinetic effects, but rather through the incompetence/negligence of the rebels. quote:As for not having the time to dig in - please. Digging a fighting position takes almost no time at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
I can't believe the UN got off its rear end and actually did something. I hope this prevents Gaddafi from killing even more people. At this point I just want to see the fucker strung up by the Libyans.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:53
|
|
|
farraday posted:I hadn't noticed mass calls by European Muslims to step in, but I admit I hadn't been looking for them either. And if it's imperialist or not hardly matters to perception of imperialism now does it? There have been protests outside the embassies across Europe (and the world). The Arab league supported this resolution (and was cited as the reason China didn't use their veto), in addition nations voting for it included Bosnia & Herzegovina and Lebanon (The only two Muslim nations on the council).
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:56
|
|
|
Competition posted:I find is suspect when early on pilots were defecting and those taking shots were missing a hell of a lot (poorly trained or not these are loving pilots with somewhat posh equipment), following your article being printed the success rate has gone up a fair bit. The momentum had already shifted by the time the article was published, let alone now. This doesn't help your argument about Libyan air power being decisive.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 04:58
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:which points to a protracted stalemate which gets back to my original point - this is likely not going to be a cakewalk and will take a significant expenditure just to maintain the status quo, let alone achieve a rollback. I'm sure it'll cost quite a few mil in missiles, yes, and possibly some dead FACs or pilots. And no, this doesn't mean Gaddafi will just suddenly disappear overnight. However, I would expect the effect to be more like when the US started backing the Northern Coalition in Afghanistan against the Taliban (when airstrikes alone changed the situation from them being nearly obliterated to steamrolling their opponents) than anything like an Iraq-style ground commitment. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 05:09 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:00
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:So why don't you provide your analysis of how this all unfolds? because Happydayz according to your calculation it would have been imposisble for the rebels to ever take a city in the first place. After all, they're untrained infantry fighting trained light infantry. Except they already did that. Okay well obviously the army has tanks, it's not like those were completely ineffective for several weeks until concentrated artillery and aerial bombardment on unfortified rebel positions tipped the balance. Oh wait. I'm sorry if the unprofessional nature of the rebels offends your sensibilities, please try and come up with an analysis that isn't based on the idea that what has already happened is impossible and we can move on from there. Of course maybe you want to treat this like a boardgame and ignore civilian populations in cities so it's just these stacks indicating rebel militia vs your putative highly trained libyan regulars. Yes, that simplifies it about enough for you to be right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:02
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:I'm sure it'll cost quite a few mil in missiles, yes, and possible some dead FACs or pilots. And no, this doesn't mean Gaddafi will just suddenly disappear overnight. That'd be a more reassuring analogy if Afghanistan had not ended up becoming a large Iraq-style ground commitment as well.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:03
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:And where is the evidence that they are operating in formations and having a battlefield effect? Well, we've seen footage of rebel tanks and APCs for what that's worth. I don't think random civilians would be able to do that. That said, we don't really have any evidence either way because for the most part the media has left the country. We don't know they are operating as a cohesive military force. We have no reason to think they're not, either, though. The same goes for the loyalists for that matter.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:04
|
|
|
New Division posted:That'd be more reassuring if Afghanistan had not ended up becoming a large Iraq-style ground commitment as well. Because we (well, not we, the US) chose it to be in order to track down Bin Laden. We could have just as well shrugged, said 'ok the Northern Coalition controls the country now go at it!', and let it degenerate into regional warlordism without a Western soldier setting foot in the country.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:05
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:The momentum had already shifted by the time the article was published, let alone now. This doesn't help your argument about Libyan air power being decisive. Your article was published on March 14th, since then the loyalist forces have pushed back the rebels and virtually taken Ajdabiya and were preparing to launch an assault against Benghazi tonight. Air power is decisive because when bombs started hitting their targets the rebel towns started to fall.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:06
|
|
|
ChaosSamusX posted:Man, do we have a single military aircraft that doesn't have that problem? (I hear out former fleet of Sea Kings is now a habitat for some of the remaining Cod in the Atlantic) Well, they're a nice complement to a submarine fleet that can't dive withhout hatches blowing and things catching on fire 
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:09
|
|
|
feedmegin posted:However, I would expect the effect to be more like when the US started backing the Northern Coalition in Afghanistan against the Taliban (when airstrikes alone changed the situation from them being nearly obliterated to steamrolling their opponents) than anything like an Iraq-style ground commitment. OEF took substantial ground forces. Someone, somewhere, please acknowledge that this Libyan intervention is going to have to include a sizeable ground element. quote:Because we (well, not we, the US) chose it to be in order to track down Bin Laden. We could have just as well shrugged, said 'ok the Northern Coalition controls the country now go at it!', and let it degenerate into regional warlordism without a Western soldier setting foot in the country. This is completely wrong. quote:because Happydayz according to your calculation it would have been impossible for the rebels to ever take a city in the first place. After all, they're untrained infantry fighting trained light infantry. the rebels did not take cities a la Stalingrad. What has since evolved is a near straight conventional fight, one that the rebels have not done well in quote:Your article was published on March 14th, since then the loyalist forces have pushed back the rebels and virtually taken Ajdabiya and were preparing to launch an assault against Benghazi tonight. this is well after the rebels started getting steamrolled. Happydayz fucked around with this message at 05:17 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Gonkish posted:I can't believe the UN got off its rear end and actually did something. I hope this prevents Gaddafi from killing even more people. At this point I just want to see the fucker strung up by the Libyans. I hate reading this sort of comment on the UN. It's not up to the UN to get "off its rear end". It's up to certain members of the Security Council not to veto resolutions (i.e. Russia & China). The Europeans don't like acting outside of international law (i.e. without a UN mandate). The UN has as many teeth as the permanent members of the Security Council want it to have. No more, no less.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:11
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:the rebels did not take cities a la Stalingrad. What has since evolved is a near straight conventional fight, one that the rebels have not done well in So, as long as we're talking about each side pouring troop into a city that's been emptied of civilians to play out your fps fantasies you're right. Yeah looks like my comment about you ignoring civilian populations was bang on the money.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:13
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:OEF took substantial ground forces. Someone, somewhere, please acknowledge that this Libyan intervention is going to have to include a sizeable ground element. quote:the rebels did not take cities a la Stalingrad. What has since evolved is a near straight conventional fight, one that the rebels have not done well in quote:this is well after the rebels started getting steamrolled.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
farraday posted:So, as long as we're talking about each side pouring troop into a city that's been emptied of civilians to play out your fps fantasies you're right. The Stalingrad reference is an explicit head nod to civilians. Initial fighting was largely not force on force with rebel militia duking it out with Libyan military, it was civilian uprising a la Egypt/Tunisia. More recently, as I had stated, the fighting had shifted to a more conventional flavor. As for fps fantasies - please. I think most people here are betraying their own ignorance of the issues if they are predicting a quick and relatively painless victory. There are potential game changers that could cause that to happen, but on balance this looks to be a hard slog. quote:Why would substantial foreign troops be needed when we rob the loyalist forces of what gave them their advantages and the country wide protests can start up again? We generally do not like dropping bombs without someone on the ground directing it. This is especially the case where there is a high probability of both sides looking alike. On top of that the civilian rebels are going to need people advising them and integrating them with western firepower - think OEF and Northern Alliance. This means people on the ground, plus the capability to rescue them if things go south. Also wrt country-wide protests starting up again. If that statement doesn't knot your stomach after what happened in Iraq I don't know what will. Yes, there are differences. But this means that you are placing an inordinate amount of hope on civilians rising up and being able to depose Gadaffi. This cannot be the planned for end-state, because if it does not occur we will be stuck in an enormously difficult situation that will require significant resources just to maintain the status quo Happydayz fucked around with this message at 05:24 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:19
|
|
|
Competition posted:Please start quoting some events then skirmish battles in towns around Tripoli don't count. Brega and Ras Lanuf, among others.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:20
|
|
|
^^^^ No-one has predicted a quick painless victory, they have however said that your comparisons to a forever war in Afghan/Iraq are incorrect.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
JJ posted:I hate reading this sort of comment on the UN. It's not up to the UN to get "off its rear end". It's up to certain members of the Security Council not to veto resolutions (i.e. Russia & China). The Europeans don't like acting outside of international law (i.e. without a UN mandate). The UN has as many teeth as the permanent members of the Security Council want it to have. No more, no less. I dont know much about this stuff, but I thought the security council was a part of the UN?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:22
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:The Stalingrad reference is an explicit head nod to civilians. Initial fighting was largely not force on force with rebel militia duking it out with Libyan military, it was civilian uprising a la Egypt/Tunisia. More recently, as I had stated, the fighting had shifted to a more conventional flavor. You completely ignored the very idea that civilian populations in reconquered cities might in any way matter until now. You reduced to to a two dimensional problem and said it would require western military intervention on the ground because (obviously) it is impossible for the rebels to take cities. You were and remain stupidly wrong, but keep charging at Stalingrad Paulus, I'm sure that will prove you right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
JJ posted:I hate reading this sort of comment on the UN. It's not up to the UN to get "off its rear end". It's up to certain members of the Security Council not to veto resolutions (i.e. Russia & China). The Europeans don't like acting outside of international law (i.e. without a UN mandate). The UN has as many teeth as the permanent members of the Security Council want it to have. No more, no less. The only problem with the UN is that 2 countries that are not Democracies are on the security council. It defeats the entire ideology of what the UN stands for. I also think there are more apt countries that could be permanent members of the SC. Australia, Canada, half of Europe etc. Maybe even have groups as a member. So the commonwealth could be one group that votes, with majority as their SC vote, and then the European Union as another etc. Lastly you could have all the democratic African nations as another, and Middle-East etc. etc. with the main focus on democratic countries with a term limit and UN approved/overviewed voting. er.. anyway on topic...
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
Happydayz posted:This is completely wrong. Why? What would have stopped us? My recollection of events at the time is that the NC took Afghanistan before anyone in the West sent any substantial number of ground troops there. Feel free to provide evidence to the contrary. Edit: Sure, I imagine we'll have special forces and FACs on the ground - my comment about no Western soldiers setting foot in the country is admittedly hyperbole. There is a huge loving difference between that and Iraq, though. feedmegin fucked around with this message at 05:26 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:23
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 15:15 |
|
|
sweeptheleg posted:I dont know much about this stuff, but I thought the security council was a part of the UN? His point was the UN is not a monolithic organization that can just act. It requires sovereign states to get together and agree.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 05:25
|
|