No Fly Zone

[rld]

I do not have anything definative regarding the background of the rebels, either way and that is the question of the day. If they are supported by taliban or muslim extreamists there is a major problem.

The equipment on both sides is pretty much identical, Russian designed AK,AKM, and heavier weapons, the rebels at present have no aircraft to speak of, or armour. Training is not going to be relevent, I do not think this is going to last long enough for any training to have an effect. So the basic question is denying a legitimate govrnment the use of their equipment in putting down an uprising inside their national boundaries.

So do we have the right to interfear in internal matters of a sovereign country?

The Chinese would say no and as a matter of fact have done so any number of times when questioned by western politicians regarding Falung Gong as well as the Tianemin Square massacre. The AMericans would say yes and have infact acted s the worlds policeman at times to there detriment. As a modern democracy we should in your opinion we should act in support of democracy,, well and good but at what point does that become an act of war?

I think we have found the first real point we disagree on. To my mind training is always a critical factor. Always. Even more so in a shorter conflict. Primary training can be done quickly and effectively.

The government has access to more vehicles, weapons and supply as far as I know.

In certain circumstances we do have the right to intervene in sovereign countries. Especially to prevent unnecessary civilian deaths.

And I understand completely why Americans are more prone to do it than many other countries. Their revolution was greatly aided by foreign powers, troops, training and leadership.

I don't doubt for a second that the colonel would see us supplying his enemies as an act of war. So be it. He can complain about it later from his prison cell. He is an illegitimate leader, heading an illegitimate government, who has already committed acts of war outside his country. To me, he is fair game.

 

[landscaper]

i spent a good deal of my life in the armed forces as a senior nco responsible for exactly the type of training that is required for what you have in mind, unless this goes on for another 8 months there is no way training would have any effect, there just is not enough time. That also does not take into account the mindset of the rebels, they might not be receptive of training.

As far as the colonal is concerned if that is your opinion )( to which you are entitled) declare war and do it properly, sneaking around the edges and trying to be nice about it is one of the things that has created part of the mess we ahve at the moment.

You should also keep the UN general assembly in mind there are a lot of dictators in there who would not approve of your actions

 

[rld]

i spent a good deal of my life in the armed forces as a senior nco responsible for exactly the type of training that is required for what you have in mind, unless this goes on for another 8 months there is no way training would have any effect, there just is not enough time. That also does not take into account the mindset of the rebels, they might not be receptive of training.

As far as the colonal is concerned if that is your opinion )( to which you are entitled) declare war and do it properly, sneaking around the edges and trying to be nice about it is one of the things that has created part of the mess we ahve at the moment.

You should also keep the UN general assembly in mind there are a lot of dictators in there who would not approve of your actions

It's really interesting you feel that way. I have a military background as well, and I would think as an NCO that you would agree that learning basics like field stripping your assault rifle, basic maintainance and weapon operation, and the basics of fire and movement, basic targeting and marksmanship, which can be taught in days...can often make the difference between life and death. Shit, I think almost all of the really important stuff I learned in Phase I training probably took a week to ten days.

As I have said before, declaring war is historic relic. Do you know when the last official war was declared? Here's a hint...it was before Korea.

I have no problem in the dictators who sit in the general assembly are made nervous by my actions. None at all.

 

[landscaper]

It's really interesting you feel that way. I have a military background as well, and I would think as an NCO that you would agree that learning basics like field stripping your assault rifle, basic maintainance and weapon operation, and the basics of fire and movement, basic targeting and marksmanship, which can be taught in days...can often make the difference between life and death. Shit, I think almost all of the really important stuff I learned in Phase I training probably took a week to ten days.

As I have said before, declaring war is historic relic. Do you know when the last official war was declared? Here's a hint...it was before Korea.

I have no problem in the dictators who sit in the general assembly are made nervous by my actions. None at all.

h
Some of those things can be taught in days, or rather the concept can be taught in days, if you think back to ypour phase 1 and 2 training, you did indeed learn the concepts in a few days. followed by weeks of repetition until it sank in and became second nature... i taught those courses at Gagetown by the way. Theother thing is the idea that you wanted to learn them and were motivated to do so. Those are probably present in a lot of the peopel running around wasting their ammunition in photo shots for the media. The picture on page 4 of the Sun this morning is a perfect example, that moron would be doing sumersaults backwards likly with only 1 foot if he actually fird the damn thing.
Being able to train somebody on short notice requires that the trainee wants to and is willing to learn , that is a rare commodity in the folks in the middle east.

As far as the dictators being nervous I expect it would be a job requirement, however the point remains, where do you draw the line, shooting down the dictators plane on its way to a UN speech ( to use Kahdaffi as an example from last year) is certainly doable and it would make more sense than just invading less loss of life less expense , but is it murder?

 

[nottyboi]

The Lockerbie bombing was a act of terrorism not an act of war. If the Libyans wanted to respond "proportionally" to the bombings there were any number of American armed forces targets available around the world tro target

The US did not attack strictly military targets when they bombed Libya either, bombs fell in several residential areas and Khadaffi's house was attacked killing his infant daughter. Both sides acted like scum in this case, but the US used a much bigger hammer. (as they always do)

 

[rld]

h
Some of those things can be taught in days, or rather the concept can be taught in days, if you think back to ypour phase 1 and 2 training, you did indeed learn the concepts in a few days. followed by weeks of repetition until it sank in and became second nature... i taught those courses at Gagetown by the way. Theother thing is the idea that you wanted to learn them and were motivated to do so. Those are probably present in a lot of the peopel running around wasting their ammunition in photo shots for the media. The picture on page 4 of the Sun this morning is a perfect example, that moron would be doing sumersaults backwards likly with only 1 foot if he actually fird the damn thing.
Being able to train somebody on short notice requires that the trainee wants to and is willing to learn , that is a rare commodity in the folks in the middle east.

As far as the dictators being nervous I expect it would be a job requirement, however the point remains, where do you draw the line, shooting down the dictators plane on its way to a UN speech ( to use Kahdaffi as an example from last year) is certainly doable and it would make more sense than just invading less loss of life less expense , but is it murder?

You have my sympathies...Gagetown was the worst place I think I ever served. I wonder if we crossed paths.

I have never been asked to train middle eastern rebels, but if you are already in a civil war, and your life depended on it, I think you might be motivated. I wonder if your attitude about middle eastern soldiers is part of the myth, like the one about black soldiers in Africa. Black African troops properly armed, trained and led had some outstanding results.

There is a clear legal and I would suggest moral distinction between peacetime assassination and war time decapitation. However, if the military of Libya lists the col in its COC and one is engaged in hostilities with them...he is fair game.

 

[Asterix]

I think the time for international action may have passed. As much as I hate to say it, it appears Gadaffi is going to win. For the time being.

 

[landscaper]

You have my sympathies...Gagetown was the worst place I think I ever served. I wonder if we crossed paths.

I have never been asked to train middle eastern rebels, but if you are already in a civil war, and your life depended on it, I think you might be motivated. I wonder if your attitude about middle eastern soldiers is part of the myth, like the one about black soldiers in Africa. Black African troops properly armed, trained and led had some outstanding results.

There is a clear legal and I would suggest moral distinction between peacetime assassination and war time decapitation. However, if the military of Libya lists the col in its COC and one is engaged in hostilities with them...he is fair game.

I served in few worse places..something about the RSm wanting me out of site out of mind until the outrage settled...

Your point about armed trained and lead is entirly true. It is an understood maxim in regard to proffesional troops with reasonable leadership. In this case you probably have an entire herd of wannabe rambos.. see picture referenced earlier .. each of whom is of course the obvious leader of the revolution. No leadership to speak of basically an armed rabble , In order to train that up to a usable force of even semi regulars it would take much longer than is available for this

 

[hinz]

LOL....

 

[fuji]

I think the time for international action may have passed. As much as I hate to say it, it appears Gadaffi is going to win. For the time being.

Are we prepared to allow the bloodbath that will follow? If Gadaffi captures Benghazi, do you think it will be anything other than wholesale genocide?

 

[hinz]

Yes, it was just on the news. They are also asking for arms

Perhaps the Iraqis should donate their surplus Kalashnikovs, RPGs, PK-guns, ammos or whatever still workable soviet small arms to their Libyans brothers to help themselves. No?

but no foreign soldiers on Libyan(sp) soil.

Didn't those SAS f*ck up lately in Libya, on top of the 3 Dutch Marines in evacuation operation taken hostages??

Speaking of foreign soldiers, perhaps the Irish, namely those in the Provos should help the Libyans. No?

 

[seth gecko]

NATO today announced 24/7 surveillance flights over Libya, but continues to (wisely) debate the imposition of a NFZ, while focussing on its ability to assist with humanitarian efforts.
So far, looks like the right people are making the right calls on how to proceed. Hillary Clinton, OTOH...........

 

[fuji]

Hillary Clinton, OTOH...........

So you don't think that the Secretary of State is the right person to make calls on how to handle foreign relations???

Your disdain for civilian politicians is evident. Good think you aren't one!

It is NOT the job of the military to decide whether or not to impose a No Fly Zone, or even to pronounce on whether it would be a good idea or a bad idea. It's the job of the military to outline what the options are, and what would be the possible and probable outcome if each option is chosen, to say if you impose a no fly zone here are the challenges, here are the risks, here's what we think would happen, but NOT to conclude whether or not that makes it a good idea or a bad idea.

It is the job of the civilian elected leadership to take that assessment and decide what to do. Sometimes there are political considerations that outweigh purely military considerations--but whatever is done should be done with realistic expectations, so the job of the generals is to describe those expectations and clarify them--and then wait for a decision.

 

[Asterix]

Are we prepared to allow the bloodbath that will follow? If Gadaffi captures Benghazi, do you think it will be anything other than wholesale genocide?

It very possibly could be, but the international community is sitting on a fence that I don't think they're going to jump off of anytime soon, and time is running out. Gaddafi was playing possum for the first week or so. Now it's going to get serious.

 

[Rockslinger]

Are we prepared to allow the bloodbath that will follow? If Gadaffi captures Benghazi, do you think it will be anything other than wholesale genocide?

Who is "we"?

 

[seth gecko]

Washington Post Opinion piece:

On Libya, too many questions


By George F. Will
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
In September 1941, Japan's leaders had a question for Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto: Could he cripple the U.S. fleet in Hawaii? Yes, he said. Then he had a question for the leaders: But then what?
Following an attack, he said, "I shall run wild considerably for the first six months or a year, but I have utterly no confidence" after that. Yamamoto knew America: He had attended Harvard and been naval attache in Japan's embassy in Washington. He knew Japan would be at war with an enraged industrial giant. The tide-turning defeat of Japan's navy at the Battle of Midway occurred June 7, 1942 - exactly six months after Pearl Harbor.
Today, some Washington voices are calling for U.S. force to be applied, somehow, on behalf of the people trying to overthrow Moammar Gaddafi. Some interventionists are Republicans, whose skepticism about government's abilities to achieve intended effects ends at the water's edge. All interventionists should answer some questions:

• The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.
  
• How much of Gaddafi's violence is coming from the air? Even if his aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?
  
• What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War - the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica - occurred beneath a no-fly zone?
  
• Sen. John Kerry says: "The last thing we want to think about is any kind of military intervention. And I don't consider the fly zone stepping over that line." But how is imposing a no-fly zone - the use of military force to further military and political objectives - not military intervention?
  
• U.S. forces might ground Gaddafi's fixed-wing aircraft by destroying runways at his 13 air bases, but to keep helicopter gunships grounded would require continuing air patrols, which would require the destruction of Libya's radar and anti-aircraft installations. If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths - remember those nine Afghan boys recently killed by mistake when they were gathering firewood - are we prepared for the televised pictures?
  
• The Economist reports Gaddafi has "a huge arsenal of Russian surface-to-air missiles" and that some experts think Libya has SAMs that could threaten U.S. or allies' aircraft. If a pilot is downed and captured, are we ready for the hostage drama?
  
• If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?
  
• Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?
  
• Libya is a tribal society. What concerning our Iraq and Afghanistan experiences justifies confidence that we understand Libyan dynamics?
  
• Because of what seems to have been the controlling goal of avoiding U.S. and NATO casualties, the humanitarian intervention - 79 days of bombing - against Serbia in Kosovo was conducted from 15,000 feet. This marked the intervention as a project worth killing for but not worth dying for. Would intervention in Libya be similar? Are such interventions morally dubious?
  
• Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?
  
• In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?
  
• Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission? If it is refused, do we proceed anyway? If so, why ask? If we are refused permission and recede from intervention, have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?
  
• Secretary of State Hilary Clinton fears Libya becoming a failed state - "a giant Somalia." Speaking of which, have we not seen a cautionary movie - "Black Hawk Down" - about how humanitarian military interventions can take nasty turns?
  
• The Egyptian crowds watched and learned from the Tunisian crowds. But the Libyan government watched and learned from the fate of the Tunisian and Egyptian governments. It has decided to fight. Would not U.S. intervention in Libya encourage other restive peoples to expect U.S. military assistance?
  
• Would it be wise for U.S. military force to be engaged simultaneously in three Muslim nations?

 

[fuji]

Who is "we"?

Collectively all of us, living in nations that could potentially intervene, standing on the sidelines possibly watching a genocide unfold and doing nothing about it.

 

[Rockslinger]

In September 1941, Japan's leaders had a question for Adm. Isoroku Yamamoto: Could he cripple the U.S. fleet in Hawaii? Yes, he said. Then he had a question for the leaders: But then what?

They were looking for the "kill shot" at Pear Harbour but fortune smiled on the U.S. because the aircarft carriers were out at sea. Those same carriers won the day at Midway but even Midway was in doubt until late in the day when the Japanese armed their planes with bombs instead of torpedos and suddenly the American dive bombers from the carriers appeared.

 

[fuji]

[*]The world would be better without Gaddafi. But is that a vital U.S. national interest? If it is, when did it become so? A month ago, no one thought it was.

A month ago there was no alternative on the horizon.

[*]How much of Gaddafi's violence is coming from the air? Even if his aircraft are swept from his skies, would that be decisive?

This is a valid concern. A few of the other points reference this too--is a no fly zone enough? Gaddafi still has considerable advantages on the ground, a better trained, better equipped army. The air campaign might have to go beyond "no fly" and actually turn into air support. The ground forces would probably have to be armed. That might STILL not be enough, but it might be the point at which further intervention becomes higher risk.

The way to handle this is political: Civilian leaders should get out in front of this before the air campaign starts and make sure that everyone on all sides is aware of their fear that Gadaffi will use human shields, and in particular, get Arab League countries to buy in to the idea that the blame for that rests with Gadaffi, to have that all agreed up front. The media would then be primed to go looking for proof that Gadaffi was using human shields, thus managing the message.

You know politicians are good for something, and this is what they're good for--if done properly the blame can be put squarely on Gadaffi's shoulders.

On the other hand it's perfectly reasonable for the Arab League to object and say, no, if it means civilian casualties, we don't want an air campaign after all, and in that case, if that's what's said, it should be respected too. The US should not make this decision unilaterally, but instead should offer support as just one of many nations offering support to whatever consensus arises on how to handle the issue.

[*]What lesson should be learned from the fact that Europe's worst atrocity since the Second World War - the massacre by Serbs of Bosnian Muslims at Srebrenica - occurred beneath a no-fly zone?

This is also a good point. The gambit rests on the air support / no-fly being enough to give the rebels an advantage over Gaddafi.

[*]If collateral damage from such destruction included civilian deaths

Gaddafi will probably put his anti-air defense in civilian areas just in the hopes of creating such a problem. This should NOT be compared with the kids if Afghanistan though, who were killed by careless and sloppy targeting--in other words avoidable had NATO done its job properly. This should be compared with Gaza/Lebanon where Hamas/Hezbollah use their civilian populations as human shields. In such cases I think the blame rests with those using the human shields--it is not a case of sloppy disregard for other people's lives such as recently in Afghanistan.

[*]If we decide to give war supplies to the anti-Gaddafi fighters, how do we get them there?

This does not sound like a big problem. With a no fly zone in place presumably ships can land at Benghazi without serious challenge by Gaddafi.

[*]Presumably we would coordinate aid with the leaders of the anti-Gaddafi forces. Who are they?

Who knows? I am willing to bet they're a better lot than Gaddafi.... even if they turn out to be a bunch of nuts, Gaddafi really is THAT bad.

[*]Could intervention avoid "mission creep"? If grounding Gaddafi's aircraft is a humanitarian imperative, why isn't protecting his enemies from ground attacks?

I think it could and possibly SHOULD creep into air support and resupply, but no further.

[*]In Tunisia and then in Egypt, regimes were toppled by protests. Libya is convulsed not by protests but by war. Not a war of aggression, not a war with armies violating national borders and thereby implicating the basic tenets of agreed-upon elements of international law, but a civil war. How often has intervention by nation A in nation B's civil war enlarged the welfare of nation A?

Arguably almost all nations in the world have an interest in a stable Middle East. It's hard to imagine how that will happen if Gaddafi is left in power. At this point Western nations have ALREADY called for his ouster. Is it really going to make a difference to Gaddafi if we stop at what we've done already??? Probably not. We're basically already fucked unless he's ousted.

[*]Before we intervene in Libya, do we ask the United Nations for permission?

Absolutely yes, and ideally with the blessings of the Arab League too, which I understand has in fact made some calls for a no fly zone.

If it is refused, do we proceed anyway?

Hell no.

have we not made U.S. foreign policy hostage to a hostile institution?

I would call it co-operating with the rest of the world.

 

[rld]

I always find George Will a thoughtful and well prepared righting. Thanks for posting that.