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

[Sam Spade]

I expect this to be quite bloody, regardless of how it ends up, probably just the start.  And will have a big impact on oil.

[Sam Spade]

Al Jazeera says they're using fighter jets to bomb protesters in Tripoli. Holy shiat. This has never been used to crust anti-government protests anywhere. The guy's going down hard.

What a fycking crazy regime.

Yeah, some very gory images coming out.  They have been using heavy munitions. Hopefully the rest of the military turns on the regime and this can end ASAP.

It isn't really that simple in Libya.  The ultimate question is going to be, if the Gaddafi's lose control of Tripoli (we ain't there yet), is where the tribes end up and whether Gaddafi's tribe will give up its position or rather choose to fight.  The only guarantee, as I posted last night, is that it will be bloody and oil will shoot the moon.

[Sam Spade]

The only guarantee, as I posted last night, is that it will be bloody and oil will shoot the moon.

The "bloody" is indisputable, but oil shooting the moon is really more dependent on the length of time the disturbances last than the intensity of the disturbances.  I could very easily see the situation, if not "calm," at least orderly enough to do business within a month.

Intensity is more important than length.

[Sam Spade]

As noted above, the first sign that Gaddafi was in a much stronger position than most people seemed to think was the fact that the rebels didn't even attempt to mount an assault on Tripoli.  The counter-attacks are now even more proof.

Barring real Western involvement (such as arming the rebels or using military force), this armed conflict is going to continue for a while, and it becomes uncertain in my mind who will prevail.

[Sam Spade]

As noted above, the first sign that Gaddafi was in a much stronger position than most people seemed to think was the fact that the rebels didn't even attempt to mount an assault on Tripoli.  The counter-attacks are now even more proof.

Barring real Western involvement (such as arming the rebels or using military force), this armed conflict is going to continue for a while, and it becomes uncertain in my mind who will prevail.

Except that none of the counterattacks have actually successfully retaken a city for Qaddafi?  That seems a pretty big hole in any argument revolving around the counterattacks.  If anything, Qaddafi's attack on Zawiah is proof of his impotence.

Your point is not unreasonable, but I suspect it will not be the only counterattack.  Meanwhile, the rebels have yet to even launch an attack on Tripoli.  In order for us to even start to think about an endgame to this, that must occur since Gaddafi's hold on Tripoli is quite strong.

I guess that so long as they manage to keep Gaddafi to Tripoli proper and a few surrounding areas, they can starve him out, but that will take time, and I'm sure they will have to repel a number of counterattacks, as well as keeping unity amongst themselves.

Which is why we'll probably see Western involvement soon enough.  So much for no blood for oil, though hopefully this will occur at a distance.

[Sam Spade]

There are a couple of factors to consider. One, the early stages of a civil war are the most critical, so if this is what is indeed brewing, then the window of opportunity to rapidly influence a decisive result is closing quickly. Two, if the two sides are relatively evenly balanced in a stalemate, it would take more than a "no-fly zone" and taking out anti-aircraft batteries to break the stalemate. Sustained aerial strikes on entrenched positions with civilian collateral casualties ala Afghanistan 2001 would likely be necessary. Three, Turkey, Russia, France and Germany would not likely be on board. This would be a "coalition of the willing." The final consideration is the impact that the Libyan situation has on other protests in other countries. Just as Tunisia and Egypt influenced others, Libya may as well. If the country falls into a protracted civil war and humanitarian crisis, particularly if Qaddafi is able to re-take cities, this may have a chilling effect on protests elsewhere, particularly raising awareness of potential violent dynamics and the risks inherent in attempting a revolution. Such a chilling effect, at this point, would not be entirely unwelcome.

No disagreements, though France and Germany may help indirectly.  For us wee people, we just wait and see, for now. 

[Sam Spade]

If the West (i.e. US and some other second-rate countries) is not interested in getting involved, then the odds are going to be in favor of Gaddafi surviving and enacting some pretty interesting revenge on the rebels.  I said 50-50 last week, but to me it looks better than 50-50 as of now.  What happens after that is anyone's guess as the old guy has always been quite unpredictable - maybe he'll go back to hijacking planes and bombing sports events.

If we want to get rid of Gaddafi, we should be using aircraft to take down Libyan planes and arming the rebels to attack Gaddafi areas and Tripoli.  But we're rapidly losing time on that front if that's the goal.  Any type of half-assed/quasi-humanitarian effort will fail and end up in innocent lives being lost for no purpose.

As for Obama's ME policy in general, I'm just trying to figure out whether it's incompetent or sinister.  Seriously.

[Sam Spade]

Arab troops are notoriously bad - though I doubt this will be Gaddafi's last assault on the towns mentioned.

[Sam Spade]

Benghazi is currently being stormed (not my words but those of opposition spokesmen). Curious definition of ceasefire.

Did you actually think he would do what he says?  It's also one of the older military tactics in the book, btw.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Sam Spade]

So, as Gaddafi closes back in on Adjabiya and soon Benghazi, it looks like once again China and Russia have outsmarted the West (except for Germany) and the US.  Now it's either boots on the ground, or the rebels will lose.  You can't play for stalemate, and now that you've gotten involved, you'll look incredibly weak when the rebs go down.