Libya: Benghazi unrest, to Civil War, to a new government and Gaddafi's death.

[Sam Spade]

All the same, if it does turn into a waiting game, how long can Qaddafi keep going with a third of his country under rebel occupation and the tightest sanctions he's ever faced?  I mean, keep going economically.  Libya's never been a well-to-do nation to begin with, even with the oil.

Gaddafi's problem will be maintaining supplies of ammunition, weapons and tanks.  In terms of funding military campaigns, he'll last a lot longer than you might imagine - Libya has major gold reserves in its banks. 

[Sam Spade]

The fact is that, at this point in the conflict, without serious actual ground forces by other countries being placed in Libya, Gaddafi will remain in control of a certain amount of Libya irregardless.  Absent that, we're just talking about whether there's a separate rebel-held part or he retakes it all.  Maybe serious aerial attacks can stop the latter, but I wonder.  A no-fly alone zone will not.

(sigh)

I lack knowledge of what's specifically going on "on the ground" right now, but my best guess is Gaddafi has figured out that if he can stay in close quarters the air strikes won’t happen.  After all, in terms of ground forces, he has a major advantage.  So, the rebels are now retreating and this time the government forces are right behind them.  The rebels keep trying to open the gap, the government keeps closing it.  Or something like that.  The rebels, become, in essence, human shields for the government forces.

Therefore, Gaddafi will wait to actually fight until he is in a town where he can use the population for protection against air strikes.  All this becomes more problematic, of course, when he gets to Benghazi or points further east where the population is less friendly and can utilize guerrilla attacks and what not.

If this is correct, the air strike, no-fly-zone policy is dead and will not work.  Arming the rebels is not a bad idea, but unless these are major armaments, you're going to have to play the guerrilla strategy, which may well take forever.  Otherwise, ground troops will be required to get rid of Gaddafi, or probably even hold the stalemate.  I guarantee it.

Btw, students of military history will know that this strategy was effectively used by the Soviets at Stalingrad against the German blitzkrieg.

Close air support has advanced quite a bit since Stalingrad.  The problem is that you need good communication and air controllers to avoid blue on blue. From what Ive seen of the rebels they look unprofessional and unorganized.  Embedding controllers with their forces is also politically dodgy. It doesnt help that I don't think the Obama admin really knows what they want to accomplish either.

Well, but that's the reason why the Stalingrad analogy works - in those days, your problem was that precision bombing, was, well, non-existent.  Here, we have precision bombing but untrained ground forces, with lack of communication, as you note.  Henceforth, the same strategy works, but for different reasons.  Good communication would help, but in the end you still need trained forces, which in the case of the rebels, would take time you don't have.  So, I think the best path is laid above.  But the people running this thing have no clue what they're doing, so what difference does it make.

I should have added that I think Misrata is f-ed, as their supply lines have been cut.  Unless they're going to start an air supply/ship supply mission, which seems unlikely.

[Mr. Morden]

The fact is that, at this point in the conflict, without serious actual ground forces by other countries being placed in Libya, Gaddafi will remain in control of a certain amount of Libya irregardless.  Absent that, we're just talking about whether there's a separate rebel-held part or he retakes it all.  Maybe serious aerial attacks can stop the latter, but I wonder.  A no-fly alone zone will not.

(sigh)

I lack knowledge of what's specifically going on "on the ground" right now, but my best guess is Gaddafi has figured out that if he can stay in close quarters the air strikes won’t happen.  After all, in terms of ground forces, he has a major advantage.  So, the rebels are now retreating and this time the government forces are right behind them.  The rebels keep trying to open the gap, the government keeps closing it.  Or something like that.  The rebels, become, in essence, human shields for the government forces.

Therefore, Gaddafi will wait to actually fight until he is in a town where he can use the population for protection against air strikes.  All this becomes more problematic, of course, when he gets to Benghazi or points further east where the population is less friendly and can utilize guerrilla attacks and what not.

I'm not sure I read the situation quite the same way.  The coalition isn't attacking Gaddafi's forces because they're in "close quarters" to the rebels?  I think it's more a matter of the coalition sticking to the UN mandate, which allows them to attack Gaddafi's forces to protect civilian population centers, but not simply to protect combatants.  Hence, they're not really doing anything to help the rebels when they battle Gaddafi along the road between Ajdabiya and Sirte.  But if Gaddafi tries to move in on Ajdabiya or Benghazi again, the coalition bombing will presumably resume.  (The coalition bombing currently seems to have moved more to the task of stopping in Gaddafi in Misrata, but that's probably a lost cause.)

If I were Gaddafi, the strategy I would follow would be to concentrate on retaking Misrata, plus other rebel holdouts in the west like Zintan.  Push the rebels back to Ajdabiya, but don't attack the city outright, because it would provoke more allied bombing.  Instead, leave the cities on the eastern coast to the rebels, but go out into the desert and seize the eastern oil fields.  Then just wait out the Western powers, to see if they really want to keep this up indefinitely.

Of course, the hitch is that I don't know if he still has enough loyal troops to contain the rebels like that, and simultaneously maintain law and order in that much territory.

[Silent Hunter]

Btw, students of military history will know that this strategy was effectively used by the Soviets at Stalingrad against the German blitzkrieg.

Students of military history will also remember that Libya was the scene of a lot of back and forth movement during the North Africa campaign of 1940 to 1943. You've also got very open country and very few roads in a desert - it's a nightmare for supply lines.

[Hash]

Does anybody have links or something to some decent articles on the role of tribes and tribal loyalty in this? I've barely found anything, and it's a a subject of interest.

[J. J.]

I'm not sure I read the situation quite the same way.  The coalition isn't attacking Gaddafi's forces because they're in "close quarters" to the rebels?  I think it's more a matter of the coalition sticking to the UN mandate, which allows them to attack Gaddafi's forces to protect civilian population centers, but not simply to protect combatants.  Hence, they're not really doing anything to help the rebels when they battle Gaddafi along the road between Ajdabiya and Sirte.  But if Gaddafi tries to move in on Ajdabiya or Benghazi again, the coalition bombing will presumably resume.  (The coalition bombing currently seems to have moved more to the task of stopping in Gaddafi in Misrata, but that's probably a lost cause.)

Actually, by attacking tanks and artillery, they are exceeding the mandate.  It is one thing to shoot down planes, destroy them on the ground, crater airfields and take out air defenses.  It is another to take out tanks and ground artillery.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The key in the east for Qaddafi in the east would be to use very small units, using machine guns, RFG's, and mortars.  They could get close to Ajdadiya and even Benghazi.  It is difficult to attack those from the air, successfully.

[Mr. Morden]

I'm not sure I read the situation quite the same way.  The coalition isn't attacking Gaddafi's forces because they're in "close quarters" to the rebels?  I think it's more a matter of the coalition sticking to the UN mandate, which allows them to attack Gaddafi's forces to protect civilian population centers, but not simply to protect combatants.  Hence, they're not really doing anything to help the rebels when they battle Gaddafi along the road between Ajdabiya and Sirte.  But if Gaddafi tries to move in on Ajdabiya or Benghazi again, the coalition bombing will presumably resume.  (The coalition bombing currently seems to have moved more to the task of stopping in Gaddafi in Misrata, but that's probably a lost cause.)

Actually, by attacking tanks and artillery, they are exceeding the mandate.  It is one thing to shoot down planes, destroy them on the ground, crater airfields and take out air defenses.  It is another to take out tanks and ground artillery.

Not true.  The Security Council resolution isn't just for a no fly zone.  It also allows the coalition to attack ground units as necessary to protect civilians.

[Middle-aged Europe]

^^

To be precise, paragraph 4 of the resolution states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Mr. Morden]

Gaddafi's foreign minister has defected.

Also, the BBC and NYT have reports suggesting that both the CIA and MI6 have numerous agents on the ground in Libya both to direct air strikes and gather intelligence.

And ABC says that Obama has signed a secret "presidential finding" authorizing covert aid to the rebels:

http://abcnews.go.com/International/president-obama-authorizes-covert-libyan-rebels/story?id=13259028

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[J. J.]

^^

To be precise, paragraph 4 of the resolution states:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Which isn't then a "no-fly zone."

In any event, Qaddafi forces have turned to the "small unit tactic" and the rebels are in retreat.

[Mr. Morden]

Which isn't then a "no-fly zone."

No one in any of the relevant governments ever said this was just a "no fly zone".  It's more a "no fly zone" + "no attack cities zone".  It's just media sloppiness fixating on the term "no fly zone" that has led to some confusion here.

[2952-0-0]

This is mission creep, plain and simple. It reinforces suspicions that the intervention is a stealthy war by the west for another Arab country's oil wealth and I don't think it's possible to undo that suspicion.

In my opinion there should have been a lot more covert undermining of the Gaddafi regime, like planting computer viruses into the Libyan military intranet or stoking up dissent among the tribes. Overt military action should have been limited to an air and naval blockade as well as striking any military units approaching rebel-held towns and cities. And arming the rebels should not be contemplated, let alone openly discussed and done, since it is against the UN Security Council resolution which the west championed. Resolution 1973 should also have banned the exporting of all crude oil from all Libyan territory.

What we're seeing here is a textbook example of mission creep.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Which isn't then a "no-fly zone."

No one in any of the relevant governments ever said this was just a "no fly zone".  It's more a "no fly zone" + "no attack cities zone".  It's just media sloppiness fixating on the term "no fly zone" that has led to some confusion here.

Which really makes it no different than the Iraqi no-fly zones. Saddam had no power in them either because his military could've been attacked if they attempted to enter them. Kind of a silly thing to nitpick over.

[Lief 🗽]

I vehemently oppose arming the rebels. At a certain point we need to learn our lesson and stop giving weapons to insurgents who are for the time being on our side but may not be in a decade.

[J. J.]

I vehemently oppose arming the rebels. At a certain point we need to learn our lesson and stop giving weapons to insurgents who are for the time being on our side but may not be in a decade.

If we don't, the rebels lose.  Just understand the stakes.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I vehemently oppose arming the rebels. At a certain point we need to learn our lesson and stop giving weapons to insurgents who are for the time being on our side but may not be in a decade.

Amen.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I vehemently oppose arming the rebels. At a certain point we need to learn our lesson and stop giving weapons to insurgents who are for the time being on our side but may not be in a decade.

If we don't, the rebels people who oppose Gaddaffi, who may or may not be terrorists themselves lose.  Just understand the stakes.

I understand them, as does Lief.

[Insula Dei]

I vehemently oppose arming the rebels. At a certain point we need to learn our lesson and stop giving weapons to insurgents who are for the time being on our side but may not be in a decade.

If we don't, the rebels people who oppose Gaddaffi, who may or may not be terrorists themselves lose.  Just understand the stakes.

Uhm, what do you mean with 'might be terrorists'? I'm honestly flabbergasted here. Arabs + guns = Potential Terrorists? These people have shown more courage in the past month or so  than most of us will ever show in our life. At the very  least you own them some respect. And everything we have seen from the Benghazi area has shown that this isn't just some 'bearded men' operating on their own, but an operation actively supported by vast proportions of the population. Are you suggesting that the women and boyscouts preparing food packets for the warriors on the frontline might be terrorists? These people ask for the freedom to not be shot at with anti-aircraft artillery when they take to the streets in protest. These aren't 'potential terrorists'.

Stop seeing all of world history as if 9/11 is the only thing that ever mattered please.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

The latest reports say CIA ops are in country to determine who the leaders of the rebels really are and whether or not we should be providing further lethal aid.

So even Barack Obomber isn't convinced they're on our side, S-J R.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

Crazy how about 1 billion of human beings suddenly automatically turned into 'potential terrorists' just because having a traditional thing in common, and this no matter of any concrete very broad elements, because I guess that if that brilliant CIA missions come with no elements that would point out they are terrorists, what would remain in suspicious minds would be 'hey, they are Muslims, you never know...'... Still more 'funny' when you consider the fact that the part of the world that consider them terrorists would precisely be, by far, the one that caused more civilian deaths in their countries, and this precisely in order to 'fight terror', which in the end creates still more (nowadays, most of the time, I prefer not to think about the possible perspectives in Pakistan, I can just hope that against all prospectives, it finally knows a kind of Arab trend... But hey, drones are still flying for Freedom...). Crazy how West got his mind f**ked up for a decade by these questions and became blind to any of its negative moves and to positive signs that could come from this part of the world, or maybe, for different kinds of reasons, no matter terrorism, it never wanted to see, which is an other debate...

(lol, at the CIA mission concretely ''.k, we have checked all those guys living in the east and who want to fight to free their country, all are ok, you can give weapons, what's happening is not a secret operation of Al Qaida", or something like that, what the guys will check exactly?)

All those are bloody human beings, civilians, a population which has been bombed because it protested against its regime which violently maintained its power during decades and that apparently had the intention to assassinate this revolt if nobody had intervened, in the same way it assassinated a lower movement in Benghazi a decade ago, thousands killed. Thats the point, you help them, they thank you, but if you constantly consider them subhumans who can't help to be bad against you [no matter how much you screwed around with them during decades], you can only hope they remain nice, and so far they didn't give the slightest elements that they were anything else than a people who wanted to fight for its Rights, and anyhow, some people who needed help. The overwhelming majority of human beings are not fond of terrorism, or aggression, or any kind of extremism, and only follow those ways under very particular conditions, and no matter their religion.

And now what they will do of their future is not of our business or our judgment, since that's precisely their future, and if some people don't want to help them, better not doing it than trying to hide behind any kind of potential fear, a flabby hand doesn't help much.

In my opinion there should have been a lot more covert undermining of the Gaddafi regime, like planting computer viruses into the Libyan military intranet or stoking up dissent among the tribes.

Not sure playing the intranet game would have had much influence on those operations in this regime, but who knows, all I can say is that several centers of command have been bombed, notably the biggest one situated close to the big residency of Gaddafi in Tripoli, Bab al Ziah. Some communication jamming is being operated too.

Overt military action should have been limited to an air and naval blockade as well as striking any military units approaching rebel-held towns and cities.

All of this is being done.

And arming the rebels should not be contemplated, let alone openly discussed and done, since it is against the UN Security Council resolution which the west championed.

If the air strikes can't help, I agree, but in the last days the point has also been that air strikes stopped when they reached Syrte, then Gaddafi forces enjoyed the roads since then, and till Brega so far, and they apparently didn't fear air strikes since they dared going out of Syrte. Apparently air strikes restarted yesterday, I hope it won't only be around Ajdabiya, for example Gaddafi forces took Ben Jawad back, even if a lot of people fled it it's a 70,000 people city technically then if coalition had stayed solid with the resolution it should have prevented military vehicles to enter it. I hope this stop of strikes is not due to all that mess about the command and NATO (damn, we really need to take our independence from that thing and the US military generally). Then we should 1st see what the rebel can do if air strikes can do some job on the road, and at the gate of cities, like they did in Ajdabiya, which did permit the rebels to take it back a few days ago. If it stays block, then yeah, I support arming them, and apparently the resolution wouldn't oppose it, the problem would come from an older embargo on weapons in Libya. But apparently it doesn't prevent countries to think about it.

Oh and, for all those who fear to arm them, well, outside of the fact that there wouldn't have much elements to fear about it so far, what do you fear ultimately? That they use heavy guerilla weapons to strike USA or Europe?

 Resolution 1973 should also have banned the exporting of all crude oil from all Libyan territory.

Oil doesn't go out of Libya for a while now.

Does anybody have links or something to some decent articles on the role of tribes and tribal loyalty in this? I've barely found anything, and it's a a subject of interest.

Seems quite hard to have things beyond generalities. That is those I evoked about Gaddafi tribe, some things I heard from different sources that I considered serious. But outside of that given how the country stayed shut during about 40 years, and would have damn changed in between, seems quite hard, and seems there isn't even much scholars who can come with some expertise, only a few generalities. All what we can see is that most of significant cities, except 3, would have rebelled themselves at one point in this conflict, we didn't have informations about 2 of those, and one, Tripoli, partly rebelled itself but would have been bombed. A few weeks ago, I heard several sources, some of which I think can be listened, who said that the main tribe of Tripolitania which counts about 1 million people would have stopped to be faithful to him.

Something I often heard too, is that Gaddafi has been very paranoiac toward his army along the years, factually he apparently also belong to the tiniest tribe of the country, doesn't help him, and then he could have tried to remodeled the army with very faithful guys who could die for him.

Gaddafi might have achieved to unite this country, against him.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

http://lightbox.time.com/2011/03/24/dispatch-from-libya-photographs-by-yuri-kozyrev/#37

Interesting diaporama and the few lines under too. While Mike Mullen just stated that there were less air strikes during the last days because of weather conditions over Libya, the last lines of this article says the same than what a reporter from the Guardian said, that is that now, Gaddafi forces would more and more use the same kind of weapons than rebels, that is pick ups with machine guns on it, far less easy to strike from the sky. More reachable for rebels then, but the regular soldiers remain far more trained than the rebels. Mike Mullen also said that about 20 to 25% of Gaddafi army would be destroyed so far.

Also, a France24 reporter in Benghazi said that rebels would be trying to have weapons from different ways, besides soliciting this from other countries, he said they could be considering asking it to private ways, nothing clear though.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I wonder why so few countries have dropped recognition of Gadaffi. So far only France, Portugal and Qatar have recognized the rebel government. In the case of the UK and US it's odd as the UK accepted the Libyan foreign minister's defection and the Libyan ambassador to the US has also defected and supports the rebel government, effectively meaning the US now has diplomatic relations with the rebels but not Gadaffi.

[Bunwahaha [still dunno why, but well, so be it]]

France has even sent an ambassador to take place in Benghazi yesterday, along with GIGN (a special force) for its protection.

[Antonio the Sixth]

I was the 16000th reader of this topic.

[patrick1]

I can't help but think that the current strategy in Libya will only lead to a prolonged status quo and ultimately more bloodshed. If the coalition backed the opposition fully or just tried to decapitate the leadership, I think this might be over sooner. (o/c this violates international laws). Right now there are a whole lot of war crimes going on from both sides and people with little to gain being the victims.