Time to Deploy EU Troops in Libya?

StudentDad

As time goes on this country seems to just get worse. Bombing runs by EU jets seems to have lost their effectiveness and Gadafi forces seem to be getting on with the job of crushing their opponents.

Is it time for us to move in in real force and drive out Gadaffi?

SD

Einhard

Eh no. For obvious reasons.

The Iraq experience being foremost amongst them.

Nodin

StudentDad wrote: »

As time goes on this country seems to just get worse. Bombing runs by EU jets seems to have lost their effectiveness and Gadafi forces seem to be getting on with the job of crushing their opponents.

Is it time for us to move in in real force and drive out Gadaffi?

SD

They aren't EU, they're NATO.

Steyr

StudentDad wrote: »

As time goes on this country seems to just get worse. Bombing runs by EU jets seems to have lost their effectiveness and Gadafi forces seem to be getting on with the job of crushing their opponents.

Is it time for us to move in in real force and drive out Gadaffi?

SD

Your not aware that the Operation is a NATO Operation and not an EU one?

OS119

Steyr wrote: »

Your not aware that the Operation is a NATO Operation and not an EU one?

given that there aren't that many EU states that both aren't NATO states, and aren't involved in the action - Germany being the big exeption - is it neccessary to be so aggressively pedentic?

perhaps the OP is talking about an EU battlegroup deployment - they were after all, formed specifically for stabilisation missions on europe's periphery - and certainly a deployment to Misrata would be well within their raison d'etre (engineers and loggies getting the port open for humanitarian aid, a large field hospital supporting the civilian hospitals in Misrata, infantry providing physical security for the 'enclave' and Artillery providing counter-battery fire to keep the local nasties away).

StudentDad

The last thing we need is a state on our southern border being torn apart by the actions of a bloody dictator. We trumpet the ideals of the European Declaration on Human Rights etc., the European Court of Human Rights etc etc etc. It strikes me as pure hypocrisy to sit back and send in a few airstrikes and say well 'we did our best.'

SD

Sod'o swords

StudentDad wrote: »

The last thing we need is a state on our southern border being torn apart by the actions of a bloody dictator. We trumpet the ideals of the European Declaration on Human Rights etc., the European Court of Human Rights etc etc etc. It strikes me as pure hypocrisy to sit back and send in a few airstrikes and say well 'we did our best.'

SD

But of course if they actually do put boots on the ground they're in it for the oil, apparently. It's a lose lose situation. As with everything that involves press now'ah days.

Steyr

Sorry OP, I did not mean to come across as "aggressively pedentic", my apologies if it did seem like that.

kevinhalvey

personally i think that if nato were to deploy it would be better then what there doing now . currently they are bombing areas where pro-gadaffi forces are ,but this in no way will stop him . the bombing are more likely to kill innocent civis then if nato or better again the u.n were to deploy on peace keeping

the situation is escalating there starting to use cluster bombs , if the u.n or nato were deployed they would be able to neutralise key objectives to gadaffi , but as it is now its just getting worst the country is just going to physically handicap itselft unless something is done

hatz7

Is it time for us to move in in real force and drive out Gadaffi?

No I don' think so. I believe that you should only send in troops when there are clearly defined military goals and a clearly defined political goal to achieve once hostilities are over.

I don't think the latter is clearly defined.

johngalway

How are they using cluster bombs if there's a no fly zone in effect?

Donny5

johngalway wrote: »

How are they using cluster bombs if there's a no fly zone in effect?

They aren't air-delivered bombs; they are using MAT-120 cluster mortar rounds.

StudentDad

Steyr wrote: »

Sorry OP, I did not mean to come across as "aggressively pedentic", my apologies if it did seem like that.

NP When this whole thing blew up Cameron et al all hopped on the bandwagon of quick get rid of Gadaffi!!! I heard a commentator on BBC quoted as saying that people on the ground could almost set their watches by the airstrikes. If that's the case all Gadaffi has to do is bunker up wait and then just get on with it. Oil or no oil if the EU does nothing and Gadaffi is allowed crush his opposition then what? Business as usual?

Talk about a propaganda coup for the 'terrorist' lunatics in the area if that happens. They'll be saying, 'hey the west is weak, you looked to them for help and they hung you out to dry!'

SD

Morlar

I think this is already a slippery slope. We have progressed from the line of 'but we must protect the civilians' with a no-fly zone, to . . . . providing offensive air support for one side of a civil conflict.

Those 'civilians' are armed and openly taking on the libyan national army, Libya has a perfect right to protect itself from internal threats imo.

Now they are putting Italian and French military advisors on the ground.

From ALL of the media reports I have seen of the 'rebels' they are utterly clueless, all wailing 'allahu akhbar' then charging up the road firing wildly then followed by an even faster retreat at the first sign of being fired back upon.

I even recall one of them looking at the camera and pointing to the distance while warning shots were fired in their direction exclaiming 'look ! look at this they are firing at us', this was after his position had been firing rockets/artillery in the direction of the libyan army position.

I think you would need a Lot of military advisors to make a difference, I think the lack of progress is possibly due to the lack of training and ability on the ground. I don't believe that advising a handful of senior anti-gadafi figures will be enough. In my view it would require a de facto invasion force (of advisors).

This is not covered under the UN Mandate, nevermind that the exsisting mandate does not have the support of China, Russia, Brazil, india etc.

stormwarning

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJonesChannel#p/u/19/Kn18LqRCD9s

StudentDad

That's not news - We've been meddling in the affairs of other countries since god was a boy! If out of the mess that is Libya a democratic country with a future arises so much the better.

SD

Morlar

StudentDad wrote: »

If out of the mess that is Libya a democratic country with a future arises so much the better.

SD

Libya was not a mess before this civil conflict, it was one of the most stable/viable areas of north africa. The conflict would be resolved by now if it were not for interference from the west.

Also, that is a big IF you have got there. Another possibility is Gaddafi is killed/ousted the 'rebels' take over and then widespread ethnic cleansing of gaddafi supporters ensues, eventually leaving behind a divisive vulnerable islamist sharia govt made up of people with shady connections.

If you look at iraq it seems that the plans in these cases don't go very far beyond 'kill saddam /defeat his army' or in this case 'kill gaddafi - defeat his army' not much has been said about the aftermath of such an outcome.

I would be a bit more reluctant to trust the governing of libya to a bunch of disparate unknowns, who at this point do not even seem to have clear leadership in place. How would you even address them as a single entity when they have no clear leadership, command and control etc ?

Who speaks for them, or does anybody actually speak for All of them ?

Have the 'rebels' actually promised free and open elections ?

Have they vowed to not seek revenge against the pro-gaddafi civilians in the aftermath ?

I don't recall any mention of any of that in the media lately.

Also another possibility is gaddafi and his family are killed - army defeated then the rebel groups split in a power struggle against each other. None of any of this appears to be on the agenda, and trusting that it will all 'magically be ok' doesn't seem sensible given the iraq aftermath which was much more straghtforward.

Avgas

Regarding who is now party it should be noted that Sweden has sent Grippens (last time I checked). Not sure if they have done bombing runs as such ...but this is quite a departure... (although come to think of it they did send jets to the Congo under UN Mandate). To point for us is they are EU but not NATO.

The problem is the precise wording of the mandate (Resolution 1972 is it?). It seems to rule out ground troops....perhaps a strictly humanitarian thing could be just about within its terms...but I suspect a modified UN resolution would be needed...to allow us participate in anything on the ground.......Russians are not making approving sounds on that front.

StudentDad

Morlar wrote: »

Libya was not a mess before this civil conflict, it was one of the most stable/viable areas of north africa. The conflict would be resolved by now if it were not for interference from the west.

Also, that is a big IF you have got there. Another possibility is Gaddafi is killed/ousted the 'rebels' take over and then widespread ethnic cleansing of gaddafi supporters ensues, eventually leaving behind a divisive vulnerable islamist sharia govt made up of people with shady connections.

If you look at iraq it seems that the plans in these cases don't go very far beyond 'kill saddam /defeat his army' or in this case 'kill gaddafi - defeat his army' not much has been said about the aftermath of such an outcome.

I would be a bit more reluctant to trust the governing of libya to a bunch of disparate unknowns, who at this point do not even seem to have clear leadership in place. How would you even address them as a single entity when they have no clear leadership, command and control etc ?

Who speaks for them, or does anybody actually speak for All of them ?

Have the 'rebels' actually promised free and open elections ?

Have they vowed to not seek revenge against the pro-gaddafi civilians in the aftermath ?

I don't recall any mention of any of that in the media lately.

Also another possibility is gaddafi and his family are killed - army defeated then the rebel groups split in a power struggle against each other. None of any of this appears to be on the agenda, and trusting that it will all 'magically be ok' doesn't seem sensible given the iraq aftermath which was much more straghtforward.

Yes but the problem with sitting back and saying, 'oh what a lovely brush fire,' is that the bloody wind could change and burn your own house down.

SD

Morlar

Sorry but I am not buying your wind analogy / logic on this one.

OS119

Avgas wrote: »

...The problem is the precise wording of the mandate (Resolution 1972 is it?). It seems to rule out ground troops....perhaps a strictly humanitarian thing could be just about within its terms...but I suspect a modified UN resolution would be needed...to allow us participate in anything on the ground.......Russians are not making approving sounds on that front.

the resolution prohibits an invasion and occupation - as long as you don't call your force an invading force, and don't give it the functions on an occupying power (quite specific and legally definative powers - merely being a foreign armed force on the sovereign territory doesn't makes you an occupying power) then you can deploy ground forces within the wording of the resolution.

this is particularly easy territory if you recognise the opposition to Gaddafi as being the legitimate government of Libya - as the French do... in which case the UN has no role in the agreement between two sovereign states for one of them to deploy military forces in the territory of the other.

because it uses the phrase 'all neccesary measures', its very easy to say that the resolution is then contradictary when it starts ruling things out like arms supplies or ground forces - and when a text is contradictary, it then becomes a matter of interpretation as to what it really means. given that it was written by the French and British, it is then difficult to argue that the British and French interpretation of what it means is incorrect...

UNSCR 1973 is so full of holes you could drive a train through it - its astonishing that there are people who think it actually rules anything out...

Avgas

Hi OS119 only getting back to you now-a busy time for me this is!
[maybe this should be merged with the main Libya thread..dunno?]

Well yes, technically your correct. You could send in ground forces under Res. 1973-as long as you make clear they are not occupation forces, BUT the fact that the Resolution expressly mentions a prohibition from occupation might allow the Russian or Chinese to object that any large-scale direct military presence on the ground lasting longer than a few weeks would be 'de facto occupation'…..Moreover, under Res. 1973 under the arms embargo seems to preclude a direct and overt arming of the rebels (it must be surely happening covertly-one hopes!)…..there are some people (such as Philippe Sands) who argue that one can claim there is scope to arm the rebels under Article 9 of the resolution…etc…but really its not robust at all…

In any event aside from legal details the political problem is that the Libyan rebels appear divided over whether it is a welcome or bad idea to have foreign military advisors/trainers/forces on Libya soil……see: http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0421/1224295160744.html

In fact its happening...but the question is how many, what can they do and what sort of political impact does it have?

And as of today I came across this choice bit of rebel thinking from Younis (a former interior minister-i.e. not exactly a naïve pleasant chap from the provinces without 'previous'):

"The question of arming the ragtag rebellion in Libya has divided the international community. Italy, a former Gaddafi ally which now backs the opposition, supports arming them but other Nato allies are lukewarm, or oppose this outright. The Libyan regime accused Qatar earlier this month of providing anti-tank missiles to the rebels.
Younis indicated the rebels had been given a "small quantity" of arms but they are "still waiting for our friends to supply us with new weapons"."We did not actually receive the proper weapons we need," he said."Of course we are not talking about light or small weapons. We're talking about more advanced [weapons] like Apache helicopters, anti-tank missiles as well as fast boats equipped with torpedoes," Younis said. He refused to name the countries the rebels are seeking weapons from."We are still waiting. Unfortunately the arms are delayed up to now," said Younis, who arrived in Brussels late on Wednesday.

What planet is this guy on-they want their OWN Apaches?

Of course it may well come to that, sort of. Seeing as the west is now 'in' Libya the choice are stark: either 'walk away' under some diplomatic pretext or escalate to finish by the Autumn-and that will require French or British (or both) ground troops and yes a Squadron of Tigers/Apaches would game change things. Just my own…non legal view of it.

But the rebels no more than when the 'west', last backed the KLA (remember them?) are not exactly an innocent or very coherent force. See this article from the International Hearld Tribune: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21rebels.html?scp=19&sq=Libya&st=cse.

The jury-rigged 57mm on the back of the technical is so bad…its…kind of good. Probably more in breech of Res.1973 than anything else given inherent inaccuracy! Moreover, where did they pick that idea up from…..Ramadi? Did someone pass it on?

Perhaps one obvious solution would be to fly out 3 battalions worth of volunteers to undertake basic infantry 101 somewhere…like Corisca…or something…and then send then home a few weeks later……a few phases of that could shift the tide of events towards to Autumn…..maybe.

Morlar

Avgas wrote: »

Perhaps one obvious solution would be to fly out 3 battalions worth of volunteers to undertake basic infantry 101 somewhere…like Corisca…or something…and then send then home a few weeks later……a few phases of that could shift the tide of events towards to Autumn…..maybe.

I believe that scenario may be a highly optimistic one.

OS119

Morlar wrote: »

I believe that scenario may be a highly optimistic one.

i'm not sure - while the ragtag army regularly gets routed, its also true to say they initially made big advances, and that they have been able to hold onto significant lumps of territory when, theoretically, the Libyan Army should have rolled them into Benghazi beach.

the reasonable conclusion from this is that its a relatively evenly matched affair - so the introduction of even a small co-ordinated, cohesive, and trained 3bn force, mobile with ATGW and on-call NATO air support might be a military game changer.

ChantalR

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1_qKVKEFU

The only winners in a war are the people who sell weapons

Donny5

ChantalR wrote: »

The only winners in a war are the people who sell weapons

Ah, wow, I had never thought of that. If only we can find a way to tell this new truism to everyone, surely war will end!

goldie fish

Donny5 wrote: »

Ah, wow, I had never thought of that. If only we can find a way to tell this new truism to everyone, surely war will end!

If we put away the guns, then they will have to put away their guns too, because you can't shoot an unarmed man... right?

OS119

ChantalR wrote: »

...The only winners in a war are the people who sell weapons

oh i don't know - i get an excellent operational allowance.

Burnt

Avgas wrote: »

What planet is this guy on-they want their OWN Apaches?

This made me laugh Avgas, reminded me of Lawrence of Arabia

Lawrence: Two thousand small arms, not enough. I need five.
Allenby: Right.
Lawrence: Money. It'll have to be sovereigns. They don't like paper.
Allenby: Right.
Lawrence: Instructors for the Lewis guns.
Allenby: Right.
Lawrence: More money.
Allenby: How much more?
Lawrence: Twenty-five thousand now. A lot more later.
Allenby: Dryden?
Dryden: It can be done, sir.
Lawrence: A couple of armored cars.
Allenby: Right.
Lawrence: Field artillery.
Allenby: Right. I know to give you every blessed thing I can,
Major Lawrence, because I know you'll use it. Congratulations and thank you.

Lawrence exits

Dryden: You give them artillery and you've made them independent.
Allenby: Then I can't give them artillery, can I?
Dryden: For you to say, sir.
Allenby: No, it's not. I've got orders to obey, thank God. Not like that
poor devil. He's riding the whirlwind.
Dryden: Let's hope we're not.