Reluctance to instigate no fly zone over Libya

Well perhaps, but bear in mind that Gaddafi's government is imploding from within and a host of new ministers have defected to Tunisia. This is the best hope of defeating him at the moment. If they think they will be prosecuted it will help to keep the regime intact. This is the dilemma, it would be justice, but not realpolitik how things often happen in practise! Look at Pinochet for example, and how Blair was sucking up to Gaddafi only a few years ago.

For the record, the British have confirmed that the Libyan foreign minister will not be immune from prosecution. Obviously he massacred the wrong people and wasn't cushy with Mrs T during his time in power. However, for the time being, I expect he will be tucked away to see if anything materialises.
 
Last edited:
Whatever the adopted strategy, one thing is sure, we dont have the right to forgive his crimes.

All we have is the duty to punish the criminal. We dont have the right to not persecute.
 
It seems Gaddafi's army are pushing the rebels back were they started.

Rather than large armoured vehicles they seem to be using much the same vehicles as the rebels: cars, vans and pick up trucks. Why can't the aircraft take these smaller vehicles out? Perhaps attack helicopters based on a nearby aircraft carrier is more suitable for this?

Admittedly, there is a danger of confusing the two sides now since no-one wears uniforms.

The UN mandate is NOT to help the rebels.
The mandate is for protecting civilians.
Should Gadaffi be able to defeat the rebels without collateral damage according to the mandate the coalition couldn`t do a thing about it.
However in real life he would have to persue into atleast Banghazi and thereby become a threat towards the civilian populace and a target for the coalition.

The jury is still out on preemptive strikes under the UN mandate..
And yes the smaller vehicles could be taken out but under what mandate?
That they are winning?
Should they approach a city and be positively identified as hostile they would be. (protecting civilian populace)

As many of the UN mandates are, this one too is far from clear.

KJ sends..
 
Well, some people think so because they are told so... It's tiny imperfections in the media that cause this kind of things...

Example in English:
Here is the title of the article:
Pentagon deploys fly-low attack aircraft against ground troops
http://www.voltairenet.org/article169212.html

In the title of French version of the same article in the same website it says:
Le Pentagone déploie un appui aérien rapproché pour des troupes au sol
appui: support
aérien: aerial (air)
rapproché: close/nearby

Now, following google traduction:
appui aérien rapproché = close air support

Now, if you read this article and decide to write it in English for another English source... You will say "close air support".

And I'm not even sure that it's a critical mistake, as the civilians who read this cant tell the difference... Maybe that for a military mind CAS is when the infantry on the battlefield ask for aicrafts to bomb the living hell out of the enemy here and here... But I think that what the journalists wants to tell the people is that their military isnt just "dropping" bombs at the enemy, they are also firing guns directly at them...

If you ask me for the point... Well, I dont know. Some people still believe that dropping smart bombs is "clean and humane"... And that shooting people with guns is less humane... Maybe...

But I think that they probably just wanted to drop a new information in the pool with their name on it.

edit 2:
The French title is extremely confusing.
In the English title, they say "against ground troups" and in the French they say "pour des troupes au sol" and we can translate it to "for ground troops". You might think that they have ground troops on the field... Are they speaking about the Rebels? About Special Forces they sent? About the targets they are engaging on the ground?

Confusing title for sure...

If someone reads French, any opinion is more than welcome.
 
Last edited:
So it´s mearly another example of journalists not factchecking and screwing up?
Probably, they are utterly useless people.
And here they go around saying their job is to inform the people..Now that´s a fu*king joke if I ever heard one..

Not THAT hard to read the resulotion and understand it, even I did that.

Now the only strafing occuring was the french on night two after spotting an attack on Benghazi.

However there are troops on the ground (Special Forces or otherwise) or not is a matter for the militaries of the different nations to release, when they want/if they want.
But I guess the journalists will screw the pooch in that regard as well possibly endangering lives in the process as they so easily do.
Wikileaks anyone?


Fact: The mandate is for protecting civilian populace.

Fact: Weapons release is only authorized for forementioned purpose.

Fact: The coalition will NOT fly CAS missions for the rebels under that mandate.

Any journalists reading this.
I just did your job for you, I read and informed. Carry on.

KJ sends..
 
I don't understand why everyone thinks this a CAS mission for the Rebels it isn't.


They are sure as hell living it up and taking advantage of it, it does not help that the media is showing headlines like.

"Rebels rejoice at Coalition bombings"

Crap along those lines. I am about 9458% sure however the Coalition figured this would happen anyway.

What worries me is when the goverment falls through, what happens when the Rebel factions now do not have common cause to be tithed together?


AND LASTELY.

If you have any confusion on American Invloment with the Coalition efforts there, over this convoluted media attention, then just look up DOD News and look for the Brief the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs Admiral Mike Mullen briefed on American extent of involment there.

The Armed Forces Press Service is not a bad read as well on events there. Why would you read a rephrasing of an rephrasing of an artcile derived from their reports anyway when you can just read from the tap?
 
Last edited:
A Can of Man, the world doesnt evolve around you.

You are not not on their side. They are on their side. Now, the question is "why arent you on their side?"
Because the Rebels are unknowns and broken down along tribal lines. The mission is to protect civilian lives not side. Ghadaffi's forces were targeted for that reason, if the Rebels break stupid in that regard they'll get warheads on foreheads too.
 
It's easy to answer that.

So, my dear A Can of Man, it's simple... You are a human being, living under the rule of a government.

This government is made of men, like you or me. Someday, their interests might go far away from yours, and your government might want to attack you and persecute you.

A bit like the situation the rebels found themselves in.

So what kind of world do you want? A world where governments get their asses kicked when they attack their populations?
Or a world where you stay safely at home while people are being crushed by a government. At the risk of seeing the same thing happening to you, or to your kids in the future?

Your call.

edit:
03USMC, I didnt pick a side yet. But I do believe that this Khadafi is crazy and corrupt. I wouldnt mind seeing his people kick his butt and kick him and his tribe out of power.

And I dont care much about the rest... I dont think that we control the consequences of our actions. So it's better to stick with moral values. Let the Libyans chose between independence, a friendly stance toward the West or an unfriendly stance toward the West.

The three positions are legitimate in my eyes. Because they have the right to be independent, the right to be friends with us and the right to be angry at us as we are not angels...
 
Last edited:
Governments are inherently corrupt.
As are companies.
As ... everything.
If you think you can change that, you are a fool.
 
A Can of Man, I dont want to change that... I want to fight that.

Corruption is a reality and it wont disappear. But we can fight it.

I can tell you that if you think that you can stop terrorism, then you are a fool.

As a honest man, you can fight crime, terrorism and corruption. It's your duty. You might win today and lose tomorrow... But that's not the point. As a honest person, you HAVE TO fight corruption. You have no power over the results. It's an endless good Vs evil story...
 
03USMC, where is the problem in that?

And I'm not sure about "untested". I said a lot of things, but I have a little experience in project management. I spent a few years fixing management problems.

And you cant imagine how many times I traced the source of the problem to an arrogant young director who was treating "different" people like crap...

If I had one trait to chose for western decision making, it would be arrogance... Not a psychiatrist, but we have a superiority complex... or something like that... Racism, an old colonial reflex, traumatic experiences... Something that denies us our ability to learn and adapt.

To sum it up. I would say that sometimes, we have to take risks in trying new stuff...

In this situation, we were playing with people's lives for centuries now... It's easy to make excuses. But the first step would be to admit that our intention arent always noble. We are not angels, we are not always kind and thinking about the others.

And I'm not in a good vs evil dilemma, it's a right and wrong.

I believe that we have to take the risk to "trust" the rebels. Let's be good and naive from time to time. Let's really help them get rid of their dictator. And let's hope that they will chose peaceful cooperation with us. If our civilization is really worth it, then let's have some faith in it.

It's called coherence.
 
The problem is that you can't equate civilian "project management." to actual warfare or combat no matter how hard you try to twist and spin and contort.

Until you manage a problem on a two way shooting range successfully and bring your people out as best you can, all your la de da notions are horse crap.
 
It's your opinion and I respectfully disagree.

I would even say that military matters are much simpler.

And the skills you need to be a good soldier arent so special. They fall into the same categories of skills. Tacit or explicit etc. Some are easy to teach, others arent...

From building an aircraft carrier to being a Marine... From shooting at the enemy to leading men...

"Project management" isnt "civilian project management". Defeating an enemy or building and selling a computer... Same discipline.

There is military traditions, and I can find you equivalent in the civilian world. To be an SAS operative, you inherit the training and knowledge of a long history of special operations. And the people who are making cars are using an industrial model that was perfected through centuries of industrial work.

Compare the cars they make in Iran with the cars made by well established industries.
It would be like comparing the Afghan army soldiers with well established military forces.
They both get the job done somehow. The Iranian cars carry you from A to B. And the ANA soldiers do empty their magazines toward the enemy... But they arent as trustworthy as their sophisticated foreign made/trained versions.

And as military forces, you would have A LOT to learn from the civilian sector.

Were you thinking about another aspect?
 
Back
Top