While parts of Libya’s northern coast have been changing hands from day to day, the conflict in Misrata has turned into a lethal stand-off.
Weeks of heavy bombardments by forces loyal to Colonel Muammar Gaddafi have failed to break the deadlock.
This is explained partly by the size of Misrata, Libya’s third largest city.
It is the only significant western rebel holdout, and is strategically important because of its deep-sea port, so rebels have fought hard to defend it.
And so we have reached the stage of the conflict where NATO looks completely ineffectual. NATO is unable to break the siege with air power and unwilling to do anything else. It has visited upon Libya nothing but stalemate and perpetual war. In the meantime, it stands around in full public view with its thumb up its nether regions.
What will NATO do as the situation in the city deteriorates, and the calls start getting louder for NATO to ‘do something.’ I suppose it could hide behind the alleged ‘illegality’ of armed intervention according to the UNSC, but the media pictures are going to make that idea increasingly ridiculous. Anyways, it had better find some place to hide or it will make itself completely contemptible by its inevitable decision to do nothing in particular for the city it pledged to defend.
It is not possible to fight wars on the cheap. You can’t limit the scale of involvement to avoid casualties and then emerge unscathed. If the West wants to fight, it should fight. If it doesn’t want to fight, it should stay out. What it should not do is play silly games from 20,000 feet because ‘that sort of operation won’t cost us anything in terms of blood.’ Other than credibility that is.
carl
Combat in a built up area is brutal and results in high casualties. Stalingrad comes to mind.
Either you fight to win, or you take your guns, tank, and airplanes and go home! NATO has set no clear goal, and as a result, Gadaffi is biding his time…..and winning. No one wants their airmen to die in action…..that’s obvious, and that’s why the air campaign….if you can call it that…..isn’t succeeding. NATO commanders have their hands tied by their own governments. The US learned a lesson in Vietnam: You can’t wage a war with one hand tied behind your back and with halfhearted ‘support’ from your own government. Resolutions don’t win wars…..military action does!
[blockquote] “NATO … has visited upon Libya nothing but stalemate and perpetual war.” [/blockquote]
No, it hasn’t. The people of Libya would be fighting regardless. Qaddafi has too much form for them to be in any doubt as to the consequences of not fighting.
[blockquote] “In the meantime, it stands around in full public view with its thumb up its nether regions.” [/blockquote]
Agreed. This is essentially the fault of isolationists in America and Europe.
[blockquote] “You can’t limit the scale of involvement to avoid casualties and then emerge unscathed.” [/blockquote]
Yes in fact you can, if you do it competently. But that is not the issue here anyway.
[blockquote] “What it should not do is play silly games from 20,000 feet because ‘that sort of operation won’t cost us anything in terms of blood.’ Other than credibility that is.” [/blockquote]
The only operation “from 20,000 feet” has been the imposition of a No-Fly Zone which did precisely what it was supposed to.
There is a separate question of whether Nato should intervene. Personally I think it should, in certain ways, and it should arm the rebels, in certain ways.
The word I am getting via unofficial sources is that the rebel battalion in Misrata is quite good. May they get through this with minimal casualties, and may the people of Misrata get relief soon.
4. MichaelA [blockquote] No, it hasn’t. The people of Libya would be fighting regardless. [/blockquote] In the absence of NATO intervention, the war would already be over. The most important outcome of NATO intervention is that Gadhaffi was prevented from winning. However, the Rebellion is incapable of winning even with NATO air support. This means the war must devolve into stalemate. Neither side can quit and neither side can win. You will say that NATO intervention prevented a massacre, and you would be right. But the cost incurred by Libya is perpetual war that has no resolution.[blockquote] This is essentially the fault of isolationists in America and Europe. [/blockquote] No, it’s the fault of a strategy that was incapable of achieving the objectives demanded of it. The Gov’t forces learned how to act underneath the rules of engagement set by NATO. Consider:
[blockquote] Coalition air strikes have been reported around the edges of Misrata, but Western officials say they are not willing to risk civilian casualties by directing these within the city, despite loud rebel calls for more muscular Nato action.[/blockquote] Air power cannot occupy a battle field. Ground forces can and will learn to operate when the enemy possess Air Supremacy. [blockquote] Yes in fact you can, if you do it competently.[/blockquote] Please define the strategy that would allow air power alone to achieve the objectives demanded of it.
[blockquote] The only operation “from 20,000 feet†has been the imposition of a No-Fly Zone which did precisely what it was supposed to. [/blockquote] NATO has been providing Close Air Support and Interdiction for the rebels. If NATO was only grounding the Iraqi Air Force then Gadhaffi would have already won. He didn’t need the aircraft nearly as much as he needed the armor and artillery. But as the battle around Misrata demonstrates, air power from high altitude is highly restricted in its ability to lift a siege. It is however ideally suited to prevent NATO casualties – which was, is, and will remain the overriding operational constraint of this operation. That’s the game. “Let’s fight a war but without risking any of our own people.”
I don’t see how intervention can be avoided at this point. NATO either admits it was incapable of finishing what it started, or NATO intervenes with ground troops and ends the war the old-fashioned way. The former destroys NATO credibility. The later requires a major long term commitment. The UK is sending in advisers now. Their level of involvement is steadily creeping upward. So long as no Americans are involved, I can live with it.
carl
Carl,
[blockquote] “No, it’s the fault of a strategy that was incapable of achieving the objectives demanded of it.” [/blockquote]
No, the reason that ground intervention has not happened in Libya is because of isolationists in America and Europe.
However, they have not been able to prevent the use of air operations, and these have achieved what they set out to do.
[blockquote] “In the absence of NATO intervention, the war would already be over” [/blockquote]
On the contrary, it is virtually certain that the war would not be over. There is no way that Qaddafi would let his “army” off the leash sufficient to take back all of Libya. As he has learned in Misrata, even untrained rebels who have their backs to the wall can become effective fighters in a short space of time. And to win this war Qaddafi has to take the towns, not just dominate open terrain with a few antiquated MRLs and tanks. He was never going to try to get the eastern cities.
But if NATO hadn’t conducted air operations, Qaddafi would certainly have recovered a lot more of Libya than he has now, and his usual mass killings and torture would follow.
By conduting the air campaign, the West has not only held Qaddafi to his base areas, but also prevented him from quashing the resistance in Misrata, one of his home areas.
[blockquote] “However, the Rebellion is incapable of winning even with NATO air support. This means the war must devolve into stalemate.” [/blockquote]
Yes, an excellent result, and far preferable to your desire to let Qaddafi win.
As for “incapable of winning” – I do so love to see people making confident predictions about the outcome of a conflict, after a few weeks of combat!
Re your last sentence, I agree that any military which does not understand these sort of operations should stay out of them. We don’t want a repeat of Iraq in 2003.
7. MichaelA[blockquote] Yes, an excellent result, and far preferable to your desire to let Qaddafi win.[/blockquote] Yeah, whatever. I have consistently argued for three positions:
1. The adoption of a coherent strategy that won’t make things worse, and has a snowball’s chance of success. Here is a hint. Such a strategy has not yet been adopted.
2. No American involvement.
3. Did I mention no American involvement?
If the British and the French and even the Australians want to send forces to Libya, that’s fine with me. Said nations will have to deal with the consequences they create. Just so long as they don’t come crying to the US to pull their *** out of the sling when things go bad. [blockquote] I agree that any military which does not understand these sort of operations should stay out of them. We don’t want a repeat of Iraq in 2003. [/blockquote] Humorous, since this vaunted air “campaign” would have been DOA without American suppression of Libyan air defenses. Say what you like just so long as you conclude your (ahem) … commentary … with “Thank you.”
carl
Carl wrote,
[blockquote] “Humorous, since this vaunted air “campaign†would have been DOA without American suppression of Libyan air defenses.” [/blockquote]
Which has what relevance to my point about the 2003 Iraq campaign?
[blockquote] “Say what you like just so long as you conclude your (ahem) … commentary … with “Thank you.— [/blockquote]
No, I don’t owe you any thanks at all. Nor do the Libyans.
We all owe thanks to the United States Air Force, and to the government that sent them. But we do not owe any thanks to an individual American who was totally opposed to his country’s involvement and wanted Qaddafi to be allowed to win.
9. MichaelA [blockquote] Which has what relevance to my point about the 2003 Iraq campaign?[/blockquote]Well, let’s see, shall we? You said …[blockquote] Re your last sentence…[/blockquote] Which just refresh the memory was “So long as no Americans are involved, I can live with it.”[blockquote] … I agree that any military which does not understand these sort of operations should stay out of them.[/blockquote] And which military would that be? But then I didn’t have to guess because you clarified your intent.
[blockquote] We don’t want a repeat of Iraq in 2003. [/blockquote] Ah yes. It would be the American military that should ‘stay out’ because it ‘does not understand these sorts of operations.’ Well, except when you need an Air Defense System suppressed so you wouldn’t get so many aircraft shot down that political support for your operation collapses. That would be the relevance.[blockquote] No, I don’t owe you any thanks at all[/blockquote] Nor did I ask for it. I simply stood up for my service and my uniform. I take those things personally. [blockquote] totally opposed to his country’s involvement and wanted Qaddafi to be allowed to win[/blockquote]The question is not whether Gadhaffi should be ‘allowed to win.’ The question is “When did it become the moral responsibility of the US to make sure he loses?”
carl
Carl,
You appear to be repeatedly reading things into my posts that just aren’t there.
At no point have I made any adverse comment about the ability of the US military to run an air operation – I have no idea where you got that from.
I have stated on this thread and on others that the US military ran the Iraq operation from 2003 very badly (although its performance improved from about 2005).
Whilst air operations may be part of a low intensity campaign, they are not the same thing, and are never the main focus of it.
And your post at #8 was asking for personal thanks – there was no reason for it otherwise. The success of the No-Fly zone has absolutely nothing to do with you, although it is partly due to the US military that participated in the operation.