a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

Muammar Gaddafi's forces are waging counterattacks on anti-government rebels along the central Libyan coast, with air raids and ground battles reported in Bin Jawad, Ras Lanuf, Az-Zawiyah and Misurata.

from Al Jazeera English

He also said there are alternatives to bombing Libya's air defenses to keep Col. Moammar Khadafy's warplanes from attacking the rebels.

"That's actually not the only option," Kerry said. "One could crater the airports and the runways and leave them incapable of using them for a period of time."

So Kerry's alternative to bombing air defences is...bombing airports and runways? What objections does he think people have to the former that wouldn't apply to the latter? (Assuming they are even different things)

you wouldn't have to go up against entrenched anti-air positions i guess.

although why there wouldn't be entrenched anti-air positions at those places i have no idea

I assumed that bombing runways was what people were talking about - after all, the Libyan govt isn't shooting down rebel planes. And it's pretty much the standard approach for a no fly zone - you disable the enemies ability to fly.

I assumed you'd have to take out their air defenses before American planes could get in close enough to "surgically" destroy the runways.

it's a matter of will. im not saying they're wrong to reject the idea, partly because the attitude of the rebels is unclear, but calling it video games is BS

x-post Well, yes, but that's a circular argument, the way Kerry presents it - you don't have to take out defences if you are not going to attack. So who was suggesting targeting their aerial defences but not their runways? (actually maybe worse than a circular argument, in that he seems to present bombing runways as an alternative to bombing air defences)

Just read that the Libyan government was just bombing some Libyan air-defense facilities that the rebels had taken over and were trying to use to take out Gadaffi's planes.

I always conceived of no-fly zones as being 'don't fly or we'll shoot you down' backed-up with routine patrols. Then, if they fly, the aircraft gets shot down. Wasn't that the arrangement in Iraqi Kurdistan?

In terms of the air defenses, why not just fly patrols over Libya, and if air defenses lock on the planes or fire at the planes, the site, and maybe a couple others, gets attacked. Again, wasn't that the procedure in Iraq during the 10 year standoff. I'm not advocating a no-fly zone, but I don't quite get this notion that a no-fly zone must begin with extensive air strikes.

well i think the idea is that you need to clear the air before you can say 'ok you can't be up here'

otherwise its an announcement that amounts to a declaration of war against the state because 'ok guys, get out of the sky or we'll shoot you down' is gonna be met with 'no'

But two of the strongest backers of a no-fly zone are also the Senate's most famous combat vets: Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) and Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) - hardly videogamers.

mccain may not bet a gamer but it might be worth mentioning that hes been an enthusiastic supporter of every proposed military adventure ever, peace keeping missions excepted of course

he was super big upping the spanish american war iirc

Definitely supported the Barbary War.

u r joking but really he is that old, haha mccain is so old

it's also important to remember that these guys are both losers, and why would you take the advice of a loser

Libya doesn't have that many military airfields (only 14 according to globalsecurity.org), and most of them are in Transitional National Council controlled Cyrenaica or were built for the Chadian–Libyan conflict. I count 6 airfields that would need to be neutralized (Al Jufra, Musurata, Mitiga, Al Jufra-Hun, Sirte, and Tripoli Intl) to ground the Libyan AF. One can stage military operations from civilian airfields, but moving the ordinance/maintenance etc operations quickly are probably beyond their current logistical capacity. Consider it took the U.S. military nearly a month to establish itself at Tirana, Albania during the Kosovo conflict.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/libya/images/libya-ab.gif

One sortie by a 4 stealth B-2s or 12 stealth F-117s with BLU-109 earth-penetrator loadouts would be enough to crater all the relevant runways. I suspect the U. S. is seriously considering this contingency, but will hold off until the evacuation of foreign nationals is complete.

As you might suspect, I misspent much of my youth wargaming. Watching footage of skirmishes on the Brega to Sirte road has made me grimace at the horrid discipline/tactics of the rebels. Then again, Malian mercenaries are probably no better, and morale can go a long way. The rebels will win if they can figure out logistics (they're already running out of fuel, capturing Ras Lanuf's refinery and stores was vital), but its going to be slow progress and the food/water situation in Ghaddafi controlled areas is going to be horrible for civilians trapped. The most important news this week will be the progress of intertribal negotiations in Sirte to allow rebel passage. As for the "stranded" rebels in Az-Zawiya (on the west of Tripoli), they're probably screwed.

As you might suspect, I misspent much of my youth wargaming.

ok why is that not a fascinating thread that i could be reading RIGHT NOW

thank you for the remarkably informed post

Even without firing a shot, a relatively passive operation using signal-jamming aircraft in international airspace could muddle Libyan government communications with military units. Administration officials said Sunday that preparations for such an operation were under way.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/07/world/middleeast/07military.html?_r=1&hp

Preparations...were under way. Obama and his slow deliberative ways, influenced here apparently by military brass.

The defense secretary, Robert M. Gates, and top commanders have warned of political fallout if America again attacks a Muslim nation, even to support a popular revolt.

Gen. John P. Jumper, who served as Air Force chief of staff from 2001 to 2005 and commanded all Air Force missions in the Middle East from 1994 to 1996, said past flight-denial missions over Iraq proved that requirements reach far beyond the jet fighters and bombers that are the most obvious instruments of carrying out a presidential order.

The destruction of Libyan air-defense radars and missile batteries would be required, perhaps using missiles launched from submarines or warships. A vast fleet of tankers would be needed to refuel warplanes. Search-and-rescue teams trained in land and sea operations would be on hand in case a plane went down.

The fleet of aircraft needed for such a mission would easily reach into the hundreds

Recent events suggest this is becoming a civil war, which is all the more reason not to intervene. Intervention to stop the massacre of unarmed civilians is one thing, intervening on the behalf of one side of a civil war is an entirely different thing. Personally, I think the uprising lost a lot of its moral superiority when it took up arms.

personally i would rather lose the moral high ground than be massacred

Why bother then? Just don't try and remove the dictator then.

you're skipping a step

Yeah.

It's way too late for me to start an argument on ILX but it seems like you're arguing 'why revolt if you'll only eventually lose moral infallibility in the eyes of the global public?'

That, to me, is crazy.

Like, they shouldn't have taken up arms when facing decimation because taking up arms means they're not singing we shall overcome anymore and so it's harder to be 100% behind them?

No. Obviously you're allowed to feel how you feel and when it comes to this few things matter more than deeply felt conviction, I just won't go there with you.

I hear you, but I have trouble believing in the righteousness of a government and society that emerges from violence.

http://www.weirdwildrealm.com/filmimages/liberty-valance.jpg

Super Cub, they didn't start w/violence. They started w/demonstrations and violence was thrust upon them by a bloodthirsty dictatorship.

I have trouble believing in the righteousness of a government and society that emerges from violence.

don't expect the result to be 'righteous' ffs, no more than anywhere else. trying to thing of a government and society that didn't start w/ violence.

I would like to hear Supercub's case for how Gandhian non-violence works against a dictator who ruthlessly uses violence and refuses to bend.

"it's a matter of will", heh

Anybody know anything about these British dudes who showed up in Benghazi after dark in a helicopter, armed to the teeth? The guys who supposedly were sent as envoys to the opposition but ended up being taken prisoner by the opposition instead? And are now on a boat back home? WTF happened? Sounds like somebody forgot to phone ahead or something.

William Hague is a fuckwit, is what happened.

Ah it was eight guys - http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/07/sas-mi6-released-libya-rebels

Crack squad of Frank Spencer impersonators.

In the commons, Hague was asked if neighbours moved into his street would he "knock on the front door to say hello or climb over the fence after dark" which was followed by about a minute and half of laughter.

what a brilliant analogy

I get that ruthless, bloodthirsty dictators make nonviolent revolution costlier and all the more horrible, but that doesn't mean that nonviolent revolution is impossible.

http://www.aeinstein.org/organizations/org/FDTD.pdf

if only the rebels had this PDF, we could really respect their position then

^they did in Egypt and used it. You people really are smug. Sorry for having principles.

that third sentence kind of undercuts the second just a tad

Right, true. I defer to the zing masters.

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2011/03/08/world/08Libya2_cnd/08Libya2_cnd-articleLarge.jpg

My main point is that it is the epitome of bordering-on-imperialistic first world privilege to prejudge the outcome of this conflict before it's even finished. The thing you wrote that generated bad reactions was:

I hear you, but I have trouble believing in the righteousness of a government and society that emerges from violence.

This is either a wholly vacuous thing to say as no society has ever been established without violence, or drastically misstated as even your followup example of Egypt happened due to what could arguably be called a military coup.

(note that page 5 of your PDF is all about how coups suck)

http://ricks.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2011/03/07/what_obama_needs_to_do_with_libya_and_with_the_joint_chiefs_of_staff_today

tom ricks runs through some possibilities.

1. Best option: Give the Libyan rebels the aid they need to win. This may be no more than some secure communications gear and a couple of thousand rocket-propelled grenades to deter Qaddafi's tanks and SUVs. (This may be already happening in some form.) Can we start flying discreet charter flights of stuff into some airports in the east? This needs to be ready to go ASAP -- like yesterday.

I don't want to come off as some kind ideologue; I fully realize that regime change is an unstable and dangerous process and I also fully realize that I have never known repression and violence. My point is that violent resistance perpetuates tyranny and is more likely to fail in it's ultimate goal of promoting a civil society that embraces freedom and respect for rights. Clearly events in Libya could prove differently, but my original assertion, that revolutions that espouse principles of freedom and civil rights lose some of their legitimacy when it uses violence still stands. That's all I really have to say.

Xp