NATO has turned Libya into an arms bazaar for terrorists

cyberhog

The arms proliferation threat of post-Gaddafi Libya
Written by Conway Waddington
Monday, 19 December 2011 08:25

...

Libya shares land borders with Algeria, Chad, Egypt, Niger, Sudan, and Tunisia. Given the enormous scale of these borders, the remote nature of the terrain, and the generally poor capabilities of the countries in the region, border security is extremely difficult to ensure. The political makeup of the region also lends itself to insurrections and allows the growth of non-state actors such as Al Qaeda in the Islamic Mahgreb (AQIM). The terrorist organisation threat taken together with the unknown status of Libya’s MANPADs has garnered the bulk of Western (media) attention. Not only does AQIM stand to gain from the availability of weapons, munitions and other material, but so too do other non-state organisations such as Al Shabaab in Somalia and Boko Haram in Nigeria. General Carter Ham of AFRICOM has suggested that Boko Haram might have begun cooperating; this is signified by declarations by AQIM leaders for support of Boko Haram, along with reports of cross-training efforts and tactical changes by Boko Haram to emulate AQIM and Al Shabaab.(14)

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=917:the-arms-proliferation-threat-of-post-gaddafi-libya-&catid=60:conflict-terrorism-discussion-papers&Itemid=265

Boko Haram are the group that claimed responsibility for the Christmas Day bomb attacks against churches in Nigeria.

Reuters
Mon Dec 26

...

The head of the U.S. military's Africa Command, General Carter Ham, lists Boko Haram along with al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and Somalia-centred al Shabaab as groups violently hostile to U.S. and Western interests who have increasingly begun to cooperate among each other..

Nigeria's military sees even closer links with al Qaeda..

Such analysis points to the increasing sophistication and organization of the Boko Haram attacks, moving from disparate shootings and bombings to more coordinated headline-grabbing actions, seeking national and international impact.

http://in.reuters.com/article/2011/12/26/nigeria-threat-idINDEE7BP02520111226


In October the UNSC passed a resolution calling on the Libyan authorites "to take all necessary steps to prevent the proliferation of all arms and related materiel of all types" of course that should have been a priority from the beginning. It's no use trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Resolution 2017
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10429.doc.htm


So NATO's ill conceived attack on Gaddafi is now fueling terrorist activities that some say could one day reach US soil.

BBC
1 December 2011

A US Congressional report says Nigeria's militant Islamist group Boko Haram is an "emerging threat" to the US and its interests.

...

The report, presented at a hearing of the House of Representatives subcommittee on counter-terrorism and intelligence, said Boko Haram could threaten the US.

"Boko Haram has quickly evolved and poses an emerging threat to US interests and the US homeland," it said.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15981656

Manic Moran

Couldn't really be helped. There was a bit of a civil war going on, and proper administrative accounting of weapons, such as it was in Libya, wasn't exactly happening.

One of those things with civil wars, you never truly know which side your supply sergeant is on, and when entire units are defecting, as they were before NATO got involved in Libya, property accountability was a bit of a lost cause. After all, entire battalions' worth of equipment was 'going missing' from government control.

Basically, NATO's involvement didn't have much to do with it except either just decide who won, or bring the war to a faster conclusion and allow some modicum of administrative order to be returned. Weapons were going walkies anyway, even if NATO never did get involved.

NTM

snafuk35

In all wars when a regime is overthrown, stockpiles of weapons fall into the hands of various groups and outsiders interested in acquiring them create a market.

After the end of World War 2, huge volumes of Axis arms were in circulation. Rifles captured from the Germans, Italians and Japanese were supplied by the Soviets to Mao's army who overthrow the Chinese Nationalists in 1949. Surplus American tommy guns, M-1 rifles and bazookas turned up in the hands of pro-American military regimes in south America or pro-Western rebel groups in Africa. JFK was killed by a surplus Italian carbine manufactured in 1940 and sold by mail order on the American market.

In Vietnam, the Vietcong used old WW2 era Soviet and German weapons, captured French weapons, captured American weapons and Soviet AK-47s and anything else they could buy on the black market.

When rebel factions in Third World counties ended up with either the Soviet AK-47 or the American M-16 during the Cold War you generally knew which side they were on.

After the end of the Cold War, the Russian army and Warsaw Pact was broken up. Eastern European regimes collapsed and vast stocks of Soviet arms were soon flooding the Congo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Chechnya and other war zones.

After the fall of Saddam, the insurgents armed themselves to the teeth with Iraqi Army stocks.
Captured insurgent weapons have been turning up on the streets of American cities and in Mexico as corrupt American soldiers have created a lucrative market.

In many pro-US countries in Asia, the M-16 was manufactured under license and was sold on the black market to many counties around the world.

This is just a fact of life.

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

Boko Haram are the group that claimed responsibility for the Christmas Day bomb attacks against churches in Nigeria.

In October the UNSC passed a resolution calling on the Libyan authorites "to take all necessary steps to prevent the proliferation of all arms and related materiel of all types" of course that should have been a priority from the beginning. It's no use trying to close the stable door after the horse has bolted.

Resolution 2017
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2011/sc10429.doc.htm

So NATO's ill conceived attack on Gaddafi is now fueling terrorist activities that some say could one day reach US soil.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-15981656

Inevitable really,Cyberhog,with little hope of your underlying point being accepted or even considered here.

Equally interesting is the fact that the US Army has an "Africa Command" with a Full General at the helm.

The accepted wisdom appears to be that achieving regime change in Libya was of such pressing need for us all,that any repercussions were risks of an acceptable nature in order to achieve this.

As Manic Moran sez,the bit of an oul civil war would inevitably lead to misappropriation of weapons.

However,it's also notable that the weaponry we are hearing of now is a far cry from the hi-tech semi-WMD type stuff which Gadaffi's forces were supposedly threatening the ordinary Libyans with.

The reality was that Libya's standing army had been quite substantially neglected and allowed to dwindle in favour of the "Khamis Brigade" specialized unit style approach,something which in some ways sealed Gadaffi's fate.

However I also believe that the West/U.N. actually backed the wrong horse here by conspiring to unseat Gadaffi without giving adequate thought to what that meant for Libya and the region and the world.

I would contend that in the case of Libya,the U.N. could well have decided to support Gadaffi`s regime rather than blindly accept the well prepared preamble they were presented with.

BlaasForRafa

AlekSmart wrote: »

However I also believe that the West/U.N. actually backed the wrong horse here by conspiring to unseat Gadaffi without giving adequate thought to what that meant for Libya and the region and the world.

I would contend that in the case of Libya,the U.N. could well have decided to support Gadaffi`s regime rather than blindly accept the well prepared preamble they were presented with.

Not another "Well Gaddafi wasn't such a bad bloke" spiel. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran hit the nail right on the head but you want to go off on another anti-west rant anyway. I assume that if Nato gets involved in Syria you'll be preparing your pro-Assad posts already.

Nodin

cyberhog wrote: »

The arms proliferation threat of post-Gaddafi Libya
.......

Your subheading is more accurate than your thread title.

AlekSmart

BlaasForRafa wrote: »

Not another "Well Gaddafi wasn't such a bad bloke" spiel. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran hit the nail right on the head but you want to go off on another anti-west rant anyway. I assume that if Nato gets involved in Syria you'll be preparing your pro-Assad posts already.

Seasons greetings to you too BlaasForRafa.

Actually,in the greater run of things in the region,Gadaffi was'nt in the Premiership of "bad blokes" at all.

However,it seems that he may have been rather too committed to his Pan African agenda for to be allowed much more manouvereing room.

The continent itself is well served by dictatorial types who would give Gadaffi more than a run for his money in terms of thousands,or hundreds of,murdered or disappeared and of stripping their countries bare to allow for their extravagant lifestyles abroad.

I'm still struck by the lack of big-ticket evidence of Gadaffi's malevolence towards "ordinary" Libyans

I remain equally unsurprised at the lack of mass-graves or other scenes of widespread Dictatorial madness,save for the Abu Salim prison incident.

ManicMoran did indeed hit the nail head on,but as he said,the Wests involvement was only to "just decide who won" and to allow the return of "some modicum of administrative order" which they (U.N./NATO) had affectively destroyed anyway.

Believe me BFR,if this is what you consider another "anti-west rant",then you ain't seen nuttin yet,for oddly enough I don't actually believe "The West" put much thought at all into what they facilitated in Libya.

I think it will take some time yet before the real reasons behind the Libyan adventure become readily apparent,but concerns about the imminent genocide of the ordinary Libyan people will not be to the fore.

It could be argued that NATO's Libyan campaign has made intervention in Syria easier,given the mass acceptance of the official line,however I contend that intervening in Syria should have been a far greater priority than Libya was,but as al-Assad never quite managed to merit Mad-Dog bogeyman status,the media aquiscence necessary for overt action was never there.

Gadaffi had for decades dutifully acted out the part of a central-casting loon,taking on the full theatricality of Uniforms,Amazonian Guards,Extravagant Gestures and even managing to LOOK like a card carrying looper.

Sometimes,our foreign policies can hang on the the stuff of appearances,given that so much of what is Western foreign policy is dependant on American interpretations of those very appearances.

I still don't buy into the official U.N.resolution 1973 line on Libya,I never have and as things progress I see less and less reasons to retrospecitively alter that view,although I remain open minded about it.

I also remain sceptical as to why the same U.N./NATO have seemingly left the al-Assad family undisturbed for as long as it took to achieve their dominant position in Syria,whilst managing to focus all Western eyes on whatever Gadaffi had for breakfast in Tripoli.

If you desire some pro al-Assad posts I'm sure there can be reasonings to allow for this,but my belief is the al-Assad regimes have far more merited a resolution 1973 for decades now,with the question being why have they not recieved this attention ?

RichieC

Blassfr's unquestioning loyaly to the western cause really shows those of us who dare question the situation in libya up for the west hating monsters that we are.

Consider me put in my place.

Jonny7

Shouldn't it be the UN to blame, as NATO did not take any decision, rather just took orders.

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Shouldn't it be the UN to blame, as NATO did not take any decision, rather just took orders.

Apologies Jonny7,I should have clarified that NATO were,of course,"just carrying out orders........"

cyberhog

Nodin wrote: »

Your subheading is more accurate than your thread title.

Security experts and NGO's have described Libya as an "arms bazzar"

President Obama’s counterterrorism adviser

..

“We have indications that individuals of various stripes are looking to Libya and seeing it as an arms bazaar,” John Brennan told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “We are concerned about the potential for certain weapons to get into the hands of terrorists – AQIM [al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] or others.”

http://eastcoastconnect.com.au/index.php/about-us/36-articles/what-you-dont-know/265-arma-go-missing-in-libya-al-qaeda-blamed-by-usa

Peter Bouckaert from Human Rights Watch

“All of Libya is a grand arms bazaar,” says Mr Bouckaert

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-14835354

So what's your problem with the title?

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Shouldn't it be the UN to blame, as NATO did not take any decision, rather just took orders.

No we shouldn't be blaming the UN. NATO overstepped the UN mandate to pursue regime change. The Alliance clearly took the rebel side and backed efforts to oust Gaddafi and only the the willfully blind would say otherwise.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Basically, NATO's involvement didn't have much to do with it except either just decide who won, or bring the war to a faster conclusion and allow some modicum of administrative order to be returned. Weapons were going walkies anyway, even if NATO never did get involved.

NTM

NATO bombing left ammunition depots unprotected.

When NATO began attacking ammunition sites, government forces manning such sites were forced to flee. Such sites were left abandoned and are now subject to heavy looting. Smugglers, along with regular civilians, have had uncontrolled access to a vast range of arms, from small arms to rockets and artillery shells.(20) With no functioning Government, there is no authority to control this worrying trend at present, and no viable plan to solve the problem in the future.(21)

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=848:opening-pandoras-box-natos-military-intervention-in-libya&catid=60:conflict-terrorism-discussion-papers&Itemid=265

AlekSmart

cyberhog wrote: »

No we shouldn't be blaming the UN. NATO overstepped the UN mandate to pursue regime change. The Alliance clearly took the rebel side and backed efforts to oust Gaddafi and only the the willfully blind would say otherwise.

There remains,for me,a somewhat odd quartet of Italy,France,Britain and Germany who went for broke on this adventure in military terms.

Britian,particularly through the RAF and RN involvement,ploughed several billion into deposing Gadaffi.

It would be an interesting exercise to secure an accurate breakdown of the cost of Military Deployment to enforce 1973 and then perhaps to subtract the amount which went towards "extending" that original mandate.

Just to reiterate,and to address BlaasforRaffa's concerns about posters being "Western Conspiracists" I don't for a moment se the Libyan thing as a big-ticket Western Backed Takeover of North Africa.

However,I do believe that the military quartet outlined above (or their controlling Governments) had rather suddenly been spooked by something in Gadaffi's recent actions/statements which has not yet been noticed by the peasantry.

FWIW,my money's on the Communications and IT freedoms which Gadaffi's recent policy moves had been flagging up for the greater African continent.

snafuk35

cyberhog wrote: »

No we shouldn't be blaming the UN. NATO overstepped the UN mandate to pursue regime change. The Alliance clearly took the rebel side and backed efforts to oust Gaddafi and only the the willfully blind would say otherwise.

A brutal dictator was overthrown and you are complaining????

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

No we shouldn't be blaming the UN. NATO overstepped the UN mandate to pursue regime change. The Alliance clearly took the rebel side and backed efforts to oust Gaddafi and only the the willfully blind would say otherwise.

The phrase you are looking for is "mission creep".

Surely by protecting civilians the NATO mission was always going to help the rebels?

What were NATO's motives do you think? (before the crazies get here)

Nodin

cyberhog wrote: »

So what's your problem with the title?

See below

We have indications that individuals of various stripes are looking to Libya and seeing it as an arms bazaar,” John Brennan told reporters at a breakfast sponsored by the Christian Science Monitor. “We are concerned about the potential for certain weapons to get into the hands of terrorists – AQIM [al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb] or others.”

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

NATO bombing left ammunition depots unprotected.

As did rebel forces approaching, or simply the local base commander deciding to swap sides and hand out weapons to anyone who had declared for the rebel side.

All those people in civilian clothing at the beginning of the war manning anti-aircraft artillery didn't happen to have ZPU-2s sitting in their garages, and I rather doubt they were issued them by the quartermaster using LA Forms 22-17 signed and countersigned for accountability.

NTM

BlaasForRafa

Manic Moran wrote: »

As did rebel forces approaching, or simply the local base commander deciding to swap sides and hand out weapons to anyone who had declared for the rebel side.

All those people in civilian clothing at the beginning of the war manning anti-aircraft artillery didn't happen to have ZPU-2s sitting in their garages, and I rather doubt they were issued them by the quartermaster using LA Forms 22-17 signed and countersigned for accountability.

NTM

You have to admit the rocket pods bolted to the back of a Nissan Patrol were pretty er...innovative?

Manic Moran

They were. They probably also weren't quite issued in accordance with Air Force regulations.... I seem to recall that Benghazi's Air Force detachment were one of the first to declare for the rebels.

[Edit: I guess I should add it's not their idea either. Similar use of the air-to-ground rocket pods was made in the Yugoslav breakup as well]

cyberhog

snafuk35 wrote: »

A brutal dictator was overthrown and you are complaining????

Just because Gaddafi is gone doesn’t mean everything is fine and dandy. The Sahel Saharan countries are very concerned about the proliferation of weapons from Libya. As is the UK's counter-terrorism chief for North Africa and the Sahel.

"The threat posed by al-Qaeda against the countries of the region is big and serious," Searby said.

...

"We are as much concerned as the Sahel countries, about the uncontrolled circulation of arms from Libya," he said. "The proliferation of weapons threatens the stability of the entire region and we must act together to determine the origin of these weapons and destroy them. They are a danger both to Libya and the neighbouring countries."

http://magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2011/10/30/feature-01

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Surely by protecting civilians the NATO mission was always going to help the rebels?

If NATO was really interested in protecting civilians they would be doing everything they can to help ensure that weapons are not crossing borders and falling into the hands of terrorist scum that blow up churches.If NATO really cared about protecting civilians they would not be leaving it up to the Libyan authorites who have no real control over the country to shoulder the responsibility that all weapons are properly controlled.

cyberhog

Nodin wrote: »

See below

A study published by the Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point says terrorists are already armed with weapons taken from Libya.

A sharp surge in terrorist attacks, attributed to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (Aqim), is threatening pro-western Algeria's political stability even as it struggles to defuse popular discontent sparked by the Arab spring, according to a new study. The rising violence is partly linked to the Nato-led war in next-door Libya, which appears to have fuelled jihadist sentiment and activity and increased the availability of weapons.

...


A number of factors could explain the escalation, including security force complacency symbolised by the dismantling of local militias, known as groupes de legitimes defense, which fought Islamist militants during the 1990s civil war. The northern Algerian branch of Aqim is a direct descendant of the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat of that period.


...


But a connection between the surge in violence and the British and French-led intervention in Libya is the most persuasive explanation, the study suggests. It notes Algerian and other African leaders have warned since March that chaos in Libya could destabilise Algeria by encouraging jihadist attacks and the movement of militants back and forth. They also suggested "that Aqim could gain possession of arms stolen from Libyan stocks".



"Evidence has since emerged that surface-to-air missiles and other unspecified weapons have been looted from Libyan stores, weapons that, according to European officials, have fallen into the hands of Aqim" – most likely via Aqim criminal affiliates in the ungoverned Sahel regions to the south, the study says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/28/aqim-violence-algeria-libya

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

As did rebel forces approaching,....

NTM

So you agree NATO bombing left ammunition depots unprotected and yet in your first response you claim NATO "didn't have much to do with" weapons going "walkies". You are clearly contradicting yourself. :rolleyes:

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

If NATO was really interested in protecting civilians they would be doing everything they can to help ensure that weapons are not crossing borders and falling into the hands of terrorist scum that blow up churches.If NATO really cared about protecting civilians they would not be leaving it up to the Libyan authorites who have no real control over the country to shoulder the responsibility that all weapons are properly controlled.

How would they be doing that without a substantial amount of personnel on the ground? The US has enough trouble sealing one border with Mexico, you suggest that NATO can manage the same in Libya by remote control?

So you agree NATO bombing left ammunition depots unprotected and yet in your first response you claim NATO "didn't have much to do with" weapons going "walkies". You are clearly contradicting yourself

Don't see how. The premise of the OP is "NATO has turned Libya into an arms bazaar for terrorists"

Libya was already an arms bazaar for terrorists before NATO got involved. NATO didn't have much to do with it. You're like someone complaining that firefighters are contributing to destruction caused by fire when they deliberately burn ground during a wildfire. It gets the problem over with quicker, and limits the total damage caused.

Victor

Of course, there are many places in the world that have the liberal trading of weapons anyway. Acquiring small arms for cash isn't that hard. Just ask the Mexican police.

Manic Moran wrote: »

They were. They probably also weren't quite issued in accordance with Air Force regulations.... I seem to recall that Benghazi's Air Force detachment were one of the first to declare for the rebels.

[Edit: I guess I should add it's not their idea either. Similar use of the air-to-ground rocket pods was made in the Yugoslav breakup as well]

Yeah, but seeing a UV-32-57 on a (kock-off?) Willys jeep was just strange given their relative sizes.

Manic Moran

Here's one from Somalia.



And one of the more combat-capable Yugoslav variants.



Personally, I like the Libyan field-expedient variant of a BMP-1 turret on a pickup.



If only they'd put as much thought into tactics as they did into innovation and yelling 'allah akhbar', they'd actually be a capable fighting force...

NTM

Victor

Manic Moran wrote: »

Here's one from Somalia.

Pfffff thats the smaller UV-16-57.

/nerd.

Jonny7

cyberhog wrote: »

If NATO was really interested in protecting civilians they would be doing everything they can to help ensure that weapons are not crossing borders and falling into the hands of terrorist scum that blow up churches.If NATO really cared about protecting civilians they would not be leaving it up to the Libyan authorites who have no real control over the country to shoulder the responsibility that all weapons are properly controlled.

And how do they do that?

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

And how do they do that?

One way was to have given a little more thought to rolling into Libya in the manner they did.

Gadaffi's regime could be said to be many nasty things,but it was quite capable of maintaining Libya's own status in the region,which was inherently a stabilizing influence there.

I suggest that without the elasticity of NATO's interpretation of 1973 the Libyan Authorities would have contained the original "revolt",which up until Libyan financial assets were frozen,was not quite as "Popular" as many suspect.

RichieC

this is not unlike the de bathification after the iraq invasion. Bremer basically sacked the army and sent them home armed and unemployed. a terrible mistake that begs conspiracy theorys.

To me weapons proliferation is just not important to the west in any meaningful way. Perhaps if they started landing on our doorstep...

Jonny7

RichieC wrote: »

this is not unlike the de bathification after the iraq invasion. Bremer basically sacked the army and sent them home armed and unemployed. a terrible mistake that begs conspiracy theorys.

To me weapons proliferation is just not important to the west in any meaningful way. Perhaps if they started landing on our doorstep...

Bremer got rid of too much, he was deeply unpopular amongst the Iraqi's. He was well-meaning and no doubt Washington pushed some of his policies, but ultimately he was responsible and had to go.

I am not sure how this relates to NATO in Libya.

RichieC

It only relates in the sense that they are both western interventions that led to increased weapons proliferation in their respective regions. It's not an issue for western policy makers.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Don't see how. The premise of the OP is "NATO has turned Libya into an arms bazaar for terrorists"

You need to read the article and not just the title.

The arms proliferation threat of post-Gaddafi Libya
by Conway Waddington

...

In the early stages of the uprisings, anti-Gaddafi forces were, as noted by renowned conflict commentator C.J. Chivers, hampered by insufficient access to weaponry.

...

With the help of the no-fly zone and NATO tactical air support, the anti-Gaddafi rebels were eventually able to overcome the equipment deficiency as they gained access to Gaddafi weapons and material which, possibly mindful of potential aerial bombardment, Gaddafi had duly distributed across Libya in a myriad of arms caches and storage areas. What the anti-Gadaffi forces gained was access to enormous stocks of SALW, which included assault rifles, mostly FAL and Kalashnikov variants, light machine guns, and Rocket Propelled Grenades. In addition, they acquired crew-served heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft weaponry such as the ZSU-23 twin and quad barrelled systems, and area-affect weapons like the BM-21 ‘Grad.’

http://www.consultancyafrica.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=917:the-arms-proliferation-threat-of-post-gaddafi-libya-&catid=60:conflict-terrorism-discussion-papers&Itemid=265

Manic Moran wrote: »

Libya was already an arms bazaar for terrorists before NATO got involved. NATO didn't have much to do with it.

Why you insist on sticking to this ridiculous notion is, quite frankly, beyond me. It looks like AlekSmart was right that there is little hope of my point being accepted or even considered here.

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

You need to read the article and not just the title.

Perhaps you should read the footnotes to the article and not just the article.

The footnote to the authority you appeal to is:

In the early stages of the uprisings, anti-Gaddafi forces were, as noted by renowned conflict commentator C.J. Chivers, hampered by insufficient access to weaponry.(4)

So if one goes down to footnote #4, one is provided with a link to the article by Mr Chivers:

http://atwar.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/06/06/military-small-arms-libya-security-puzzles-and-profiteers/

In that article, one finds the following passage:

Most of the weapons, rebels said, have been acquired through a buyback program in which donors’ money underwrites the purchase of weapons looted by citizens from Qaddafi armories in February, when the uprising began.

February, is it? And a quick check of the timeline on Wiki notes that NATO didn't start any actions at all until the second half of March. By which point the rebel forces had some pretty substantial forces of their own, to include tanks and attack aircraft. The statement was made in the second half of May, so despite two months of NATO aviation, the majority of the weapons in use, apparently, were still from pre-dating the NATO involvement.

This does not negate the fact that NATO support helped 'liberate' additional weapons stocks, but it seems that they had plenty enough weapons to give the loyalist forces something to think about from the start.

Why you insist on sticking to this ridiculous notion is, quite frankly, beyond me. It looks like AlekSmart was right that there is little hope of my point being accepted or even considered here.

Did you consider the possibility that it isn't being accepted because it fails the logic test? The timeline of events is well known: Long before NATO got involved, there was sufficient disorder that an unofficial army could be equipped. As the Chivers article points out, those weapons could go to whoever was willing to pay the money for them, be they rebels, or persons of another persuasion.

Again, let us go to Mr Chivers, in an article which pre-dates NATO involvement by a couple of weeks:
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/04/world/africa/04weapons.html

Photographs and video from the uprising show civilians carrying a full array of what were once the Libyan military’s weapons — like the SA-7, an early-generation, shoulder-fired missile in the same family as the more widely known Stinger — that intelligence agencies have long worried could fall into terrorists’ hands.
[...]
Peter Danssaert, a researcher for the International Peace Information Service in Belgium who covers arms proliferation in Eastern Europe and Africa, said that now that the weapons were out of government custody, few would be recovered. “They are gone forever” from state accountability, he said.

And you would have us believe that NATO is the cause of this loss of accountability?

NTM

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Did you consider the possibility that it isn't being accepted because it fails the logic test?

I think the reason it's not being accepted is definitely due to a failure of logic.

First of all, let's be clear, you've quoted a passage that is not part of the article from footnote 4 but comes from a different article that was written by Chivers at an earlier date. Now the point of the passage you quoted was to highlight as Chivers notes

the rebels’ frustrations with their fellow countrymen’s profiteering in the small-arms trade at the uprising’s expense.

The rebels were in dire need of weapons and they were not happy that fellow Libyans were withholding what weapons were available for profit.


Now lets focus on the actual article from footnote 4.

In it Chivers writes

no one would seriously dispute that the rebels’ state of supply is well below the scale of their ambitions, and that this has created predictable behaviors.

no one except Manic Moran that is! who somehow has gotten this ridiculous notion lodged in his brain that the rebels had acquired the majority of their weapons before NATO got involved.

Chivers continues

They share rifles at the frontlines, many other rebel checkpoints have few weapons or little ammunition, and fallen rebels are often stripped of their rifles and cartridges before being raced away in an ambulance.

These are sure signs of a military movement trying to cope with a dearth of supply.

He also notes

More weapons might help the rebels succeed... But more weapons would also enable a mostly disorganized and an erratically led force to commit abuses on a broader scale. And the weapons could then be expected to drift to other conflicts and high-crime areas, and last many decades.

It was NATO that corrected the undersupply problem.

With the help of the no-fly zone and NATO tactical air support, the anti-Gaddafi rebels were eventually able to overcome the equipment deficiency

And you would have us believe NATO didn't have much to do with it? lol

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

The rebels were in dire need of weapons and they were not happy that fellow Libyans were withholding what weapons were available for profit.

Right, and if they're willing to sell them to someone for profit, what's to stop them from being sold to your local common or garden criminal organisation or terrorist cell? The whole issue is that the weapons are on the market, and out of government control.

no one except Manic Moran that is! who somehow has gotten this ridiculous notion lodged in his brain that the rebels had acquired the majority of their weapons before NATO got involved.

Except Manic Moran and the rebel that Mr Chivers was quoting.

Let me try to break this down for you.

no one would seriously dispute that the rebels’ state of supply is well below the scale of their ambitions

Translation: They have a few weapons. They don't have as many weapons as they would like.

Most of the weapons, rebels said, have been acquired through a buyback program [...] of weapons looted by citizens from Qaddafi armories in February

Translation: Of the number of weapons that they do have at that point in May, most of them are from Gaddafi stocks taken in February.

There is no inconsistency here or logic flaw. If they want half a million rifles, they only have 100,000 rifles, and 80% of them are from Gadaffi stocks from February, then both statements are correct: They want more, but what's gotten them to that point dates from pre-NATO aquisitions.

It was NATO that corrected the undersupply problem.

With the help of the no-fly zone and NATO tactical air support, the anti-Gaddafi rebels were eventually able to overcome the equipment deficiency

Erm, no, that line states that it was NATO that allowed the rebels to win the fight. Note the use of the word 'overcome', not 'correct', 'remedy', 'rectify', 'fix', 'remove', 'eliminate' or any other word which would support your statement.

Battered rifles and a shortage of ammunition are a deficiency which may prevent a victory against a well-armed opponent. Battered rifles, a shortage of ammunition, and a flight of F-16s, however, may provide that victory. No change in the large-scale issue of equipment deficiency, but the deficiency is 'overcome', 'worked around', 'sidelined', or 'mitigated.'

Your loling doesn't much help your argument either I fear. Sound doesn't have much effect unless you want to put up an audio file of yourself or a youtube or some such.

NTM

Jonny7

Addressing between Feb 15th and March 15th

Gaddafi ordered the opening of arms depots, he called on every one of his people to be armed to fight the terrorist uprising, obviously that backfired for him in the short and long term.

There were large amounts of defecting soldiers and units, esp. in the East (and extreme West) of the country, they gained access to arms, including tanks, helicopter gunships, and even a jet.

The rebels captured many weapons from pro-Gaddafi fighters early in that period, they also made and manufactured "home-made" weapons themselves. Engineers and students even came up with "non-lethal" weapons.

That's a huge amount of arms in just the first month of the conflict.

Since NATO are not on the ground, I do not see any way they can account for and control all of these weapons after the conflict. Some of these weapons are going to fall into the wrong hands, esp. during this "wild west" phase in Libya, and there are definite factions of the rebels who are extremist themselves or linked to extremists.

Despite some friendly fire, the majority of rebels overwhelmingly view NATO and the West as being their saviors in that conflict, but as we know from the past, that always remains fickle and fragile. Any attempt to put boots on the ground and start "policing" Libya is far too risky post-conflict (and obviously post-Iraq).

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Addressing between Feb 15th and March 15th

Gaddafi ordered the opening of some arms depots, he called on every one of his people to be armed to fight the terrorist uprising, obviously that backfired for him in the short and long term.

There were large amounts of defecting soldiers and units, esp. in the East (and extreme West) of the country, they gained access to arms, including tanks, helicopter gunships, and even a jet.

The rebels captured many weapons from pro-Gaddafi fighters early in that period, they also made and manufactured "home-made" weapons themselves. Engineers and students even came up with "non-lethal" weapons.

That's a huge amount of arms in just the first month of the conflict.

Since NATO are not on the ground, I do not see any way they can account for and control all of these weapons after the conflict. Some of these weapons are going to fall into the wrong hands, esp. during this "wild west" phase in Libya, and there are definite factions of the rebels who are extremist themselves or linked to extremists.

Despite some friendly fire, the majority of rebels overwhelmingly view NATO and the West as being their saviors in that conflict, but as we know from the past, that always remains fickle and fragile. Any attempt to put boots on the ground and start "policing" Libya is far too risky post-conflict (and obviously post-Iraq).

The month referenced by Jonny7 is the turning point in the Libyan affair sure enough.

However,it also represents a period when Libyan Government forces were engaging and suppresing rebel elements,something which,of itself,lead to pleas for UN intervention under the the "preventing a civillian massacre" guise.

At this juncture (Feb/March) the Libyan situation was far too close to call and it is not unlikely that it would have ended up a confrontation between the Islamiscist hard core and the Regime hard-core,with the general population awaiting the result.

The ability of Libyan government forces to use their air-power to suppress and further engage Rebel forces only began to become an issue at the end of Feburary.

It was only after some succesful aerial operations by Government forces that a realization dawned of a potential Government rout,should they get their tactics sorted.

The reality of Libya's armed forces was of a none too well trained,poorly equipped force with a largely paper based ability to mount large-scale operations.

However,when motivated and resourced,the Airborne elements did manage to achieve their mission objectives.

That situation,however,was shortlived,and recognised by NATO as being the first item on it's order-of-business.

Once Libyan air forces were neutralized then the war would have to be fought on the ground,something which was an equal problem for a U.N./NATO alliance none too keen to see Western Boot Prints on North African desert sands.

However,it's all in the past now and no amount of trawling through the embers will solve the many new problems now faced by "Free" Libya and it's citizens.

One interesting blog I came across here....

http://www.historyguy.com/libya_unrest_timeline_2011.htm

....is one of the first mentions I've seen of Libya's next in line status after Egypt's Mubarak was sidelined,also beinging in the role played by the Social Networking sites such as Facebook.

I gues rebellions will never be the same again post Zuckerberg ?

Victor

AlekSmart wrote: »

The ability of Libyan government forces to use their air-power to suppress and further engage Rebel forces only began to become an issue at the end of Feburary.

It was only after some succesful aerial operations by Government forces that a realization dawned of a potential Government rout,should they get their tactics sorted.

One of the important issues to account for was that the use of aerial bombing and artillery was somewhat indiscriminate*, initially by the government side and then by the rebels before the fall of Sirte.


* Bombing and artillery poses very little risk to the people doing the firing, assuming the other guy can't respond in like.

Bombing people / targets in open desert will mostly just kill them, even if you use way too many bombs.

Use of Smarter bombs in more urban areas is less risky than the "That looks about right" (TLAR) method, where you are more likely to miss with any individual bomb than you are to hit. In an urban area, missing the target invariably means hitting someone else.

The average tinpot dictator / angry oppressed people have the nasty habit of doing what is very safe for them, but indiscriminately deadly for anyone near the Other Guy™.

The reality of Libya's armed forces was of a ... poorly equipped force with a largely paper based ability to mount large-scale operations.

I think "poorly equipped" may not be quite accurate. They had plenty of equipment (although much of it somewhat dated), but not the know-how or ability to (a) use it or (b) use it effectively.

I gues rebellions will never be the same again post Zuckerberg ?

Ireland had a decisive election, Tunisia had a change of government, Egypt has had partial régime change. Libya had a revolution and Syria has an on-going rebellion.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

Erm, no, that line states that it was NATO that allowed the rebels to win the fight.

Now you're trying to infer meaning that goes beyond the point the author was making. Sad!

Manic Moran wrote: »

Note the use of the word 'overcome', not 'correct', 'remedy', 'rectify', 'fix', 'remove', 'eliminate' or any other word which would support your statement.

You've been proven wrong and think that desperately splitting hairs will keep you from looking like a fool.

Sorry, bro, it ain't workin'.

Manic Moran wrote: »

Battered rifles and a shortage of ammunition are a deficiency which may prevent a victory against a well-armed opponent. Battered rifles, a shortage of ammunition, and a flight of F-16s, however, may provide that victory. No change in the large-scale issue of equipment deficiency but the deficiency is 'overcome', 'worked around', 'sidelined', or 'mitigated.'

You really have a great knack for spinning fantastical theories while ignoring what is right in front of your face!

Hopefully the added emaphasis will help the penny drop for you.

With the help of the no-fly zone and NATO tactical air support, the anti-Gaddafi rebels were eventually able to overcome the equipment deficiency as they gained access to Gaddafi weapons and material which, possibly mindful of potential aerial bombardment, Gaddafi had duly distributed across Libya in a myriad of arms caches and storage areas. What the anti-Gadaffi forces gained was access to enormous stocks of SALW, which included assault rifles, mostly FAL and Kalashnikov variants, light machine guns, and Rocket Propelled Grenades. In addition, they acquired crew-served heavy machine guns, anti-aircraft weaponry such as the ZSU-23 twin and quad barrelled systems, and area-affect weapons like the BM-21 ‘Grad.’

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Addressing between Feb 15th and March 15th

Gaddafi ordered the opening of arms depots, he called on every one of his people to be armed to fight the terrorist uprising, obviously that backfired for him in the short and long term.

There were large amounts of defecting soldiers and units, esp. in the East (and extreme West) of the country, they gained access to arms, including tanks, helicopter gunships, and even a jet.

The rebels captured many weapons from pro-Gaddafi fighters early in that period, they also made and manufactured "home-made" weapons themselves. Engineers and students even came up with "non-lethal" weapons.

That's a huge amount of arms in just the first month of the conflict.

I think you're stretching the truth there somewhat.

C. J. Chivers was in Libya in April and he described the rebels as being "abjectly underequipped" during the first few months.

Chivers reports

Few who have seen the front lines would dispute that Libya’s rebels need arms matched to their fight.

...

A survey of weapons carried by hundreds of rebels fighting on two fronts — in eastern Libya and the besieged city of Misurata — presents a picture of an armed uprising that is both underequipped and in custody of many weapons with no utility in the war at hand.


...

the rebels’ mismatched arsenal and their inexperience and lack of discipline have made achieving the revolution’s military goal extraordinarily hard.

...


By one fundamental measure of readiness, the Forces of Free Libya, as the rebels call themselves, are abjectly underequipped: They have many more volunteers than rifles.

...



To watch Libyan rebels head to battle is to watch young men calling for freedom step toward a bloody mismatch, and often their deaths. To arm them, though, is to assume other risks, some of which could last for years.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/21/world/africa/21rebels.html?pagewanted=1&_r=3

It was only when NATO intervened that the weapons available to the rebels improved markedly.

Manic Moran

cyberhog wrote: »

Now you're trying to infer meaning that goes beyond the point the author was making. Sad!

There is no other possible meaning to the words which are written.

You've been proven wrong and think that desperately splitting hairs will keep you from looking like a fool.

Sorry, bro, it ain't workin'.

It is not splitting hairs to point out that a word which means one thing was used and one which means something else was not. Ask a judge. Or someone who writes for a living.

However, it appears that Mr Waddington is a Dutchman from Nijmegen, so in this case I guess we'll have to give him a little slack in choosing incorrect words to express his point, as his English is better than my Dutch.

Hopefully the added emaphasis will help the penny drop for you

Your emphasis doesn't help matters.

You seem, somehow, to be reading from what I write that I am countering the proposition that with the assitance of NATO airstrikes the rebel forces gained access to more weapons. I in no way do so.

What I am pointing out is that the concept that disreputable agents now being able to obtain former Libyan stocks as a result the NATO offensive, which they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise, is flat wrong.

The list of weapons in that phrase you emphasise are all weapons which were already in the rebel armoury long before NATO got involved. (With the exception of the twin-barreled ZSU-23, because it doesn't exist, maybe he meant ZU-23)

http://totallycoolpix.com/2011/02/the-libya-protests-part-2/

Dated Februrary, Rebels with RPGs, ZU-23s, crew-served weapons incl a ZPU-4.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8395143/Libya-conflict-30-dramatic-pictures-by-Goran-Tomasevic.html?image=11

Rebels arming a BM-21 Grad multiple rocket launcher, dated 09MAR.

Pandora's box had been opened long before the first NATO airstrike. Again, let us go back to Mr Chivers, since he seems to report on the subject frequently:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/15/world/africa/15libya.html?pagewanted=1

In February, in the early stages of the uprising, large numbers of the missiles slipped from the hands of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi’s government as the rebels established control over eastern Libya and the ammunition depots there.

From the perspective of the OP, anything captured after that is just icing. Al Qaeda isn't going shopping for thousands of SA-7s, just a few score or if they're ambitious, hundred. Many times that much was lost from government control in February. Supply existed before NATO.

NTM

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

There is no other possible meaning to the words which are written.

Exactly!

The rebels were short on weapons and the author's point was that NATO helped them overcome that deficiency. That doesn't require any translation from you. We all know that NATO help allowed the rebels to win but that's not the point the author was making.

Manic Moran wrote: »

It is not splitting hairs to point out that a word which means one thing was used and one which means something else was not.

Of course you are splitting hairs!

The rebels had an undersupply problem. NATO bombing helped rebels aquire more weapons and thus corrected the undersupply problem. Simples!

Manic Moran wrote: »

You seem, somehow, to be reading from what I write that I am countering the proposition that with the assitance of NATO airstrikes the rebel forces gained access to more weapons. I in no way do so.

No what I'm reading from you is that you think NATO didn't have much to do with weapons going "walkies."

Manic Moran wrote: »

Basically, NATO's involvement didn't have much to do with it except either just decide who won, or bring the war to a faster conclusion and allow some modicum of administrative order to be returned. Weapons were going walkies anyway, even if NATO never did get involved.

It's true some weapons would have gone "walkies" before the airstrikes began but to most observers it is clear that NATO involvement had a hell of a lot to do with enormous stocks of weapons slipping from Government control.

Manic Moran wrote: »

What I am pointing out is that the concept that disreputable agents now being able to obtain former Libyan stocks as a result the NATO offensive, which they wouldn't have been able to do otherwise, is flat wrong.

Rebels were "abjectly underequipped" before NATO got involved so it's logical to surmise that there wouldn't have been much for terrorists to get their hands on either. NATO got the weapons flowing but in doing so they have exacerbated the terrorist problem in the Sahel region.As was noted in the study published by the Combating Terrorism Centre at West Point.

A sharp surge in terrorist attacks, attributed to al-Qaida in the Islamic Maghreb (Aqim), is threatening pro-western Algeria's political stability

...

a connection between the surge in violence and the British and French-led intervention in Libya is the most persuasive explanation, the study suggests.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/sep/28/aqim-violence-algeria-libya

lagente

Serious escalation in killings by Boko Haram seems to point to new situation in Libya for the weapons. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2103955,00.html

Jonny7

lagente wrote: »

Serious escalation in killings by Boko Haram seems to point to new situation in Libya for the weapons. http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2103955,00.html

Woah there..

Where in the article does it point to a connection between Boko Haram and Libya?

AlekSmart

Jonny7 wrote: »

Woah there..

Where in the article does it point to a connection between Boko Haram and Libya?

No link,so Jony7's absolutely correct,nothing to see here...move along please....definitely no Libyan sourced weaponry to be found in the BH arsenals....

However i'm sure good ol Omar al-Bashir will be pressing flesh and doing his bit to ensure the security of "New" Libya's arms stocks.

http://www.ibtimes.com/articles/278179/20120107/sudan-libya-bashir-gaddafi-ntc-darfur.htm

Luckily for Omar,those pesky Internal Criminal Court arrest warrants won't be enforced there as they ain't in the ICC loop,unless of course your name's Gaddafi.

Mind you,the Free World coalition might just suddenly spring back into action in defence of the millions of Sudanese who have "issues" with Omar......Paddy Power may even give one odds on the "Protection of Civilians" ethos of resolution 1973 being resurrected for the Sudanese ?

If we wait long enough we might even end up with a link.

cyberhog

So now genocidal murderers are welcome in Libya. That's just great! :rolleyes:

It really could not be more obvious that NATO made the wrong call on backing those looney rebels.

cyberhog

Jonny7 wrote: »

Woah there..

Where in the article does it point to a connection between Boko Haram and Libya?

A new UN report warns there has recently been an increase in terrorist activities in the Sahel region by groups like Boko Haram and AQIM. It notes that the Libyan crisis increased the flow of weapons in the region and that increase the report says is believed to further fuel the activities of terrorist groups.

Read the report

http://www.reliefweb.int/sites/reliefweb.int/files/resources/N1220863.pdf

Manic Moran

I wasn't about to resurrect this thread, but bizarrely I received an email from Mr. Waddington a few days ago referencing this thread. Bottom line is that he believed you were taking his article a little out of context.

cyberhog

Manic Moran wrote: »

bizarrely I received an email from Mr. Waddington a few days ago referencing this thread.

Why would Mr. Waddington email you?

Manic Moran wrote: »

Bottom line is that he believed you were taking his article a little out of context.

I pay no attention to hearsay. If Mr. Waddington has something to say he knows where the thread is.