Gaddafi vowed to defend his country

[raja2kb]

Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi vowed to defend his country against "colonial aggression" as Western nations launched their first air strikes against Libyan defences and began enforcing a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya.
Which countries will be helping Gadaffi to defend his country?

 

[03USMC]

Gaddafi's own freakin people are who he is fighting. Did you miss the whole civil war/rebellion thing goin on for the last two weeks?

 

[Big_Z]

He is just grandstanding, nobody is coming to save that clown. His ship has already sank. His Generals will probably turn on him if his people don't get him first.

 

[LeMask]

But I like Kadhafi's ideas... He is defending his country from the colonial forces and fighting Al-Quaeda at the same time...

This guy is everybody at the same time...

 

[Seehund]

But I like Kadhafi's ideas... He is defending his country from the colonial forces and fighting Al-Quaeda at the same time...

This guy is everybody at the same time...

He fights to save his own ass, that's all there is to it.

 

[LeMask]

Seehund, It was ironic. But he is completely schizophrenic... And the problem is that there is some truth in what he is saying...

The people he is fighting share many points with Al-Quaeda.

And the Western forces intervening now are the remnants of a nasty colonial era...

edit:
I honestly against the Western intervention. These guys dont give a rat's ass about the Arabs and they dont want their freedom...
They have an agenda in the area.

Why we dont send forces from the Arab world?

And if the Libyans are getting slaughtered, then let them get slaughtered... And let them the Arab regimes show how weak they are. And maybe that their people will riot more against them for failing in Libya... And then, we will have less weak willed governments in the Arab world...

 

[Kari]

The Albanian prime minister Sali Berisha said he wants to send 1000-2000 special forces to Libya if needed. I doubt thought NATO wants to conduct an ground war aswell.

 

[Yossarian]

Seehund I think nailed it,

He knows, good and certain, once the walls of the Palace or where ever he is residing is breached either by a coupe, or the rebels, he would most likely be killed gruesomley, trial or not.

And if he tried to run out of the country, where would he go?

As far as I can ascertain even the world's worst terror cells don't even like the guy.

He is, put lightly, screwed.

Lest some western sf crews get ahold of him, and he "disapears", or turned directly over to the rebels.

 

[Del Boy]

Funny thing is, before this situation festered, those of importance desperately wanted him to go, but they blocked any exit by closing down all his options for shelter or finance wherever they could. I have always understood that the secret to success in such affairs is always to leave the target a way out, thereby avoiding devastation before the damage is done. :?:

 

[MontyB]

The Albanian prime minister Sali Berisha said he wants to send 1000-2000 special forces to Libya if needed. I doubt thought NATO wants to conduct an ground war aswell.

To be perfectly honest I suspect 1000-2000 troops is about all it would take to crush the Libyan army the problem is that I don't think just bombing Libya is going to get rid of Qaddafi because the "rebels" seem completely clueless and unable to anything but fire guns in the air and run away at the first sign of opposition.

So with this in mind I suspect that sometime soon NATO or the "Coalition" are going to have to put boots on the ground to end this, with luck someone can convince Egypt to pop over the boarder and just finish it so it doesn't come across as another Western crusade.

 

[Seehund]

Funny thing is, before this situation festered, those of importance desperately wanted him to go, but they blocked any exit by closing down all his options for shelter or finance wherever they could. I have always understood that the secret to success in such affairs is always to leave the target a way out, thereby avoiding devastation before the damage is done. :?:

Gadhafi should quickly have been overwhelmed — but he wasn’t. He actually have substantial support among some tribes and within the army. All of these supporters have a great deal to lose if he was overthrown. Gadhafi did not run Libya for the past 42 years because he was a fool, nor because he was simply a dictator using force against innocents, but rather because he speaks to a real and powerful dimension of Libya. He was very careful to reward his friends and hurt and weaken his enemies, and his supporters were substantial and motivated.

To be perfectly honest I suspect 1000-2000 troops is about all it would take to crush the Libyan army the problem is that I don't think just bombing Libya is going to get rid of Qaddafi because the "rebels" seem completely clueless and unable to anything but fire guns in the air and run away at the first sign of opposition.

So with this in mind I suspect that sometime soon NATO or the "Coalition" are going to have to put boots on the ground to end this, with luck someone can convince Egypt to pop over the boarder and just finish it so it doesn't come across as another Western crusade.

Invade ? And then what?

We are supporting a very diverse and sometimes mutually hostile group of tribes and individuals, bound together by hostility to Gadhafi and not much else. It is possible that over time they could coalesce into a fighting force, but it is far more difficult imagining them defeating Gadhafi’s forces anytime soon, much less governing Libya together.

The problem in Iraq was not in the decapitation strikes or suppression of enemy air defenses. It was not in the defeat of the Iraqi army on the ground. It was in the occupation, when the enemy reformed and imposed an insurgency on the United States that it found extraordinarily difficult to deal with. Even if Gadhafi surrenders or is killed, even if no invasion is necessary the possibility of an insurgency is there. We will not know if there will be an insurgency until after it begins. If there is an invasion, it is likely to succeed. The question then becomes whether Gadhafi’s forces move into opposition and insurgency. This again depends on morale but also on behavior. The Americans forced an insurgency in Iraq by putting the Baathists into an untenable position. In Afghanistan the Taliban gave up formal power without having been decisively defeated. They regrouped, reformed and returned. It is not known to us what Gadhafi can do or not do. It is clear that it is the major unknown.

As for Egypt they appear ready but there is long animosity between the two countries, and its actions might not be viewed as liberation.

One thing is for sure - Gadhafi in effect is being asked to give up everything, and the same with his supporters. We must be careful this time, otherwise we are left with a new Iraq.

 

[Yossarian]

So your saying the west needs to accomplish another "police action"?

Eygpt just went through a revolution, and with the Military in control there, I do not how that would settle with the for now somewhat peaceful Eygptian populace if that government immediately went into armed conflict.

But that is a different brand of affairs all together.

 

[Seehund]

If you look at it, then the alliance’s full intention is not clear, nor is it clear that the allies are of one mind. The U.N. Security Council resolution clearly authorizes the imposition of a no-fly zone. By extension, this logically authorizes strikes against airfields and related targets. Very broadly, it also defines the mission of the intervention as protecting civilian lives. As such, it does not specifically prohibit the presence of ground forces, though it does clearly state that no “foreign occupation force” shall be permitted on Libyan soil. It can be assumed they intended that forces could intervene in Libya but could not remain in Libya after the intervention. What this means in practice is less than clear.

The protection of the rebels from Gadhafi’s vengeance coupled with attacks on facilities under Gadhafi’s control logically leads to the conclusion that the alliance wants regime change, that it wants to replace the Gadhafi government with one led by the rebels. But that would be too much like the invasion of Iraq against Saddam Hussein, and the United Nations and the alliance haven’t gone that far in their rhetoric, regardless of the logic of their actions. Rather, the goal of the intervention is explicitly to stop Gadhafi’s threat to slaughter his enemies but they will not be responsible for the outcome of the civil war. We support his enemies but leave the responsibility for the outcome in the hands of the eastern coalition.

 

[Del Boy]

Gadhafi should quickly have been overwhelmed — but he wasn’t. He actually have substantial support among some tribes and within the army. All of these supporters have a great deal to lose if he was overthrown. Gadhafi did not run Libya for the past 42 years because he was a fool, nor because he was simply a dictator using force against innocents, but rather because he speaks to a real and powerful dimension of Libya. He was very careful to reward his friends and hurt and weaken his enemies, and his supporters were substantial and motivated.



One thing is for sure - Gadhafi in effect is being asked to give up everything, and the same with his supporters. We must be careful this time, otherwise we are left with a new Iraq.

Which is why I feel that from the beginning he should have been persuaded (if possible) to the easy and comfortable exit stage left; like Mubarrak, rather than putting up every barrier to any sort of voluntary removal. Leaving him nowhere to go and no credit card, no alternative but to fight and die; with all his support; result - possible civil war, heavy death toll, as we are struggling to avoid now. We had no post-war plan in |Iraq, 10 yesrs in Afghanistan it seems, and chasing our tails for how long in Libya. When are we going to realise that these guys are not easy to out-think. They are streets ahead, a handful of chess moves ahead.

 

[MontyB]

Which is why I feel that from the beginning he should have been persuaded (if possible) to the easy and comfortable exit stage left; like Mubarrak, rather than putting up every barrier to any sort of voluntary removal. Leaving him nowhere to go and no credit card, no alternative but to fight and die; with all his support; result - possible civil war, heavy death toll, as we are struggling to avoid now. We had no post-war plan in |Iraq, 10 yesrs in Afghanistan it seems, and chasing our tails for how long in Libya. When are we going to realise that these guys are not easy to out-think. They are streets ahead, a handful of chess moves ahead.

Didn't Neville Chamberlain try that line of action, how did that work out?

 

[MontyB]

Invade ? And then what?

We are supporting a very diverse and sometimes mutually hostile group of tribes and individuals, bound together by hostility to Gadhafi and not much else. It is possible that over time they could coalesce into a fighting force, but it is far more difficult imagining them defeating Gadhafi’s forces anytime soon, much less governing Libya together.

The problem in Iraq was not in the decapitation strikes or suppression of enemy air defenses. It was not in the defeat of the Iraqi army on the ground. It was in the occupation, when the enemy reformed and imposed an insurgency on the United States that it found extraordinarily difficult to deal with. Even if Gadhafi surrenders or is killed, even if no invasion is necessary the possibility of an insurgency is there. We will not know if there will be an insurgency until after it begins. If there is an invasion, it is likely to succeed. The question then becomes whether Gadhafi’s forces move into opposition and insurgency. This again depends on morale but also on behavior. The Americans forced an insurgency in Iraq by putting the Baathists into an untenable position. In Afghanistan the Taliban gave up formal power without having been decisively defeated. They regrouped, reformed and returned. It is not known to us what Gadhafi can do or not do. It is clear that it is the major unknown.

As for Egypt they appear ready but there is long animosity between the two countries, and its actions might not be viewed as liberation.

One thing is for sure - Gadhafi in effect is being asked to give up everything, and the same with his supporters. We must be careful this time, otherwise we are left with a new Iraq.

The problem here is that Qaddafi knows he just has to sit there and weather the bombing until the West loses interest and the Arab world changes sides which will probably be around 1 month after the start.

So yes I am saying invade or stay the hell out of the conflict all together, I have a great deal of concern this will be another half arsed effort similar to that of the post Gulf War 1 Shiite uprising where they were given all the encouragement to rise up against Hussein but as soon as they did the West hung them out to dry now we are hated by everyone there.

Basically if we are not prepared to see a job through to the end then don't start, the Wests biggest problem is not a lack of ability but rather a lack of resolve and people like Qaddafi play on that.

 

[Del Boy]

Didn't Neville Chamberlain try that line of action, how did that work out?

The point is that he could have walked, given a way out; if he did, he did - if he didn't, he didn't. In saying that he should go but at the same time blocking all exits throughout the world, he had no alternative but to stand and fight - creating a bloodbath.

Your analogy with Chamberlain doesn't fit the bill at all - think Mubarrak or other despots in the past who have had options to leave the stage left open for them to take advantage of.

He was told to leave and locked in at the same time. Not a good strategy.

Anyone fancy a 30 year stretch keeping Libyans apart?

 

[Seehund]

The problem here is that Qaddafi knows he just has to sit there and weather the bombing until the West loses interest and the Arab world changes sides which will probably be around 1 month after the start.

So yes I am saying invade or stay the hell out of the conflict all together, I have a great deal of concern this will be another half arsed effort similar to that of the post Gulf War 1 Shiite uprising where they were given all the encouragement to rise up against Hussein but as soon as they did the West hung them out to dry now we are hated by everyone there.

Basically if we are not prepared to see a job through to the end then don't start, the Wests biggest problem is not a lack of ability but rather a lack of resolve and people like Qaddafi play on that.

Go all the way? And how far is that?

The Libya operation is almost similar to its predecessors in Iraq and Afghanistan and then one can ask: What is the goal? What are the success criteria? When can we say that we victoriously can go home?

Removing Gadhafi is the easy task. When he is gone, one problem is solved but we will be left with 10,000 other problems.

In Iraq, the goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMDs. It was easy since there were none. But other problems surfaced. Similarly in Afghanistan: The objective was to neutralize Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. They moved to Pakistan and the West was caught in new difficulties.

The goal in Libya can not simply be to remove Gadhafi - though our politicians get it to sound like that. As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush on Iraq: "If you break it , you own it."

You can be sure that the future Libya will look nothing like Tunisia and Egypt because it lacks a united opposition, a strong military and social institutions that are built to last - all key underlying factors that will assuredly lead to some level of chaos - the question is one of magnitude. Will it yield low-levels of instability or outright civil war?

Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, Libya is an amalgam of over 140 tribes and clans. Two of the largest tribes, the Warfalla and the Misurata, have led the anti-government revolt, while others, most notably the Qadhafah and Magariha, back the regime. So once Gadhafi goes, there will likely be competition for power and influence between these key tribes.

In the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions the armed forces were a source of national cohesion and stability, but the Libyan army has never been a true national army because Gadhafi divided it using the tribal system. Gadhafi instead concentrated ammunition and weapons into the hands of loyal special forces known as the Katibat and other private paramilitary groups. The current rebellion has caused the regular army in Libya to collapse and if the regime falls tomorrow, there isn't a strong centralized group that has the resources to manage a demilitarization of the revolution. For example, there aren’t any mechanisms in place today to ensure people turn in their weapons.

The worst-case scenario for post-Gadhafi Libya would be if Islamic jihadists filled the power vacuum and turned the country into a failed state akin to Afghanistan or Somalia. That Libya could fall into the hands of jihadists in the short-term is probably unlikely – however, the power vacuum and chaos could provide Islamic radicals with more “operating space” to destabilize the country and the region. Gadhafi adeptly crushed violent Islamic extremist opposition which caused Islamists to flee Libya to participate in jihad abroad. However, this phenomena could come back to haunt Libya’s future government as Libyan jihadists hone skills and become stronger by fighting in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia

These are some of the issues we're up against if we invade

Again, "If you break it , you own it." The coalition now owns Libya. Now the coalition is also responsible for Libya's peaceful future. It may prove a heavier responsibility than anyone can imagine today.

The point is that he could have walked, given a way out; if he did, he did - if he didn't, he didn't. In saying that he should go but at the same time blocking all exits throughout the world, he had no alternative but to stand and fight - creating a bloodbath.

Whether he went voluntarily or were forcibly removed the above scenario would be the same.

 

[Del Boy]

Whether he went voluntarily or were forcibly removed the above scenario would be the same.

If he had stepped down, why would the field not have been left to the insurgents, unopposed, in the immediate aftermath, in your opinion?

 

[MontyB]

Go all the way? And how far is that?

The Libya operation is almost similar to its predecessors in Iraq and Afghanistan and then one can ask: What is the goal? What are the success criteria? When can we say that we victoriously can go home?

Removing Gadhafi is the easy task. When he is gone, one problem is solved but we will be left with 10,000 other problems.

In Iraq, the goal was to disarm Saddam Hussein of his WMDs. It was easy since there were none. But other problems surfaced. Similarly in Afghanistan: The objective was to neutralize Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda. They moved to Pakistan and the West was caught in new difficulties.

The goal in Libya can not simply be to remove Gadhafi - though our politicians get it to sound like that. As U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell warned President George W. Bush on Iraq: "If you break it , you own it."

You can be sure that the future Libya will look nothing like Tunisia and Egypt because it lacks a united opposition, a strong military and social institutions that are built to last - all key underlying factors that will assuredly lead to some level of chaos - the question is one of magnitude. Will it yield low-levels of instability or outright civil war?

Unlike Tunisia and Egypt, Libya is an amalgam of over 140 tribes and clans. Two of the largest tribes, the Warfalla and the Misurata, have led the anti-government revolt, while others, most notably the Qadhafah and Magariha, back the regime. So once Gadhafi goes, there will likely be competition for power and influence between these key tribes.

In the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions the armed forces were a source of national cohesion and stability, but the Libyan army has never been a true national army because Gadhafi divided it using the tribal system. Gadhafi instead concentrated ammunition and weapons into the hands of loyal special forces known as the Katibat and other private paramilitary groups. The current rebellion has caused the regular army in Libya to collapse and if the regime falls tomorrow, there isn't a strong centralized group that has the resources to manage a demilitarization of the revolution. For example, there aren’t any mechanisms in place today to ensure people turn in their weapons.

The worst-case scenario for post-Gadhafi Libya would be if Islamic jihadists filled the power vacuum and turned the country into a failed state akin to Afghanistan or Somalia. That Libya could fall into the hands of jihadists in the short-term is probably unlikely – however, the power vacuum and chaos could provide Islamic radicals with more “operating space” to destabilize the country and the region. Gadhafi adeptly crushed violent Islamic extremist opposition which caused Islamists to flee Libya to participate in jihad abroad. However, this phenomena could come back to haunt Libya’s future government as Libyan jihadists hone skills and become stronger by fighting in places like Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia

These are some of the issues we're up against if we invade

Again, "If you break it , you own it." The coalition now owns Libya. Now the coalition is also responsible for Libya's peaceful future. It may prove a heavier responsibility than anyone can imagine today.


Whether he went voluntarily or were forcibly removed the above scenario would be the same.

I think while well thought out you have fallen into the age old trap of "paralysis by analysis" we can go through the "what if's" until hell freezes over but the fact is that you have a leader who is at best a reformed terrorist but more likely a good liar who is now happily killing his own people who for the most part want him gone.

As for the coalition owning Libya I think that is somewhat inaccurate as the coalition could call off operations tomorrow, Qaddafi will kill off a few thousand opposition and then be back selling oil within a week.

What the West has to decide is what its end goal is and despite all the hand wringing there is only two option:
1) Leave Qaddafi there.
2) Trust the rebels and get rid of him.

There are no other permeations so take ya pick.

We have argued for years that the only way to bring peace to the middle east is through the application of democracy, now we have several movements that are prepared stand up and fight for it and the first thing we do is break into a cold sweat over getting involved, if there was ever a time to assist them this is it and if it turns out that we made a bad choice so what they can't be much worse than the crazy bastards that are in power there now.