Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
United States Discussion Board
   Return to Topic Page
Subject: A more pratical approach to a Libyan no fly zone?
Nanheyangrouchuan    3/8/2011 5:32:45 PM
Gates and past CIA and DOD people all describe the difficulty and risk of establishing a no fly zone on such a big country. But no one has discussed using drones on a scale not used before, nor using missile strikes to knock out SAM sites. After taking out the known SAM sites, especially the ones that cover rebel strong holds, would it be possible to send up drones with A2A missiles to loiter until a Libyan fighter comes up? And as Qaddafi is using gunships to attack the rebels, use smaller drones to go after them? Depending on how things are with Egypt and Tunisia, we could base UAVs out of those areas. How possible is it to use air defense ships off of the coasts to provide cover for the rebels?
 
Quote    Reply

Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest
Pages: 1 2
YelliChink       3/8/2011 5:46:44 PM
Establishing NFZ is not smart move.
 
Unless Gadhafi's loyalists are marching on Brega unopposed, there is no urgency to deal with their level of competency in air-to-ground strike.
 
Be patient, it takes time to organize and train combat-read troops, and some more money to acquire adequate weapon systems, such as 9K31, ZSU-23-4 and Crotale VT (or HQ-7). No smaller SAM or advanced AAA should be deployed.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/8/2011 7:41:01 PM

The first question is why? If your answer is because of humanitarian reasons then there are lots of other places this would apply to. If you think that it would help to unseat Gaddafi then historical data shows that not only to be ineffective but extremely risky and likely to suffer mission creep. Also by helping the rebels how do we know if they arent just as bad as the current leader.

Using Drones would also harm the current war effort. Drone CAPs are in extremely high demand and we can't afford to use them in places that don't matter. Use of naval vessels risk escalation as well. Just like the aircraft ships are vulnerable and protective preemptive action is necessary to provide security. This whole no-fly zone idea is foolishness and is just the wrong thing to do considering what's at stake.

Also people, understand what a no fly zone means. UNDER THE BEST CASE if thats all is done is a no fly zone AND it works. You have to attack Libyan IAD systems on the ground. That's going to be interpreted as an act of war and in order to get positive ID on the targets you will need to put boots on the ground. Think about why. How do you tell pro Gaddafi from rebel?

I don't think the Europeans have the capability to do anything meaningful without the USA backing it.

Ask yourselves this question. What was the outcome of the 1990s-Pre 9/11 era No Fly Zones. After you answer that ask yourself if it's still a confidence inspiring move to impose a No Fly Zone.

-DA


PS Yes I think it would be cool to see F-22's shoot some planes down ect. However this is not a video game and despite the MSN media's best efforts to create a spectacle by all but offering the lives of Airman, Aviators, Marines and Soldiers in this most foolish adventure just to switch into 24/7 crisis coverage(and increased advertising rates) mode the reality needs to be clear.

 
Quote    Reply

Nanheyangrouchuan       3/8/2011 10:48:23 PM
Egyptians and Tunisians smuggling in Stingers.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/8/2011 11:45:25 PM
Nan,

Do you REALLY think funneling MANPADS to that part of the world and in particular to that country would be a wise or useful decision?
The United States Government and private sector have championed massive efforts to REMOVE the MANPADS threat since 9/11 for obvious reasons. Moreover, Libya is a nation with a demonstrated recent history of using terror tactics that include the destruction of an airliner. It would be both dangerous as well as politically unacceptable for the USA to allow your suggestion. But lets pretend for a minute that they did...

Gaddafi's strength isn't that he has aircraft. It's that he has better command and control than the rebels. That alone by itself is a force multiplier. So by downing a few of his planes you really don't achieve anything more than an occasional tactical victory. Granted the psychological and propaganda coup of downing a Libyan would do a lot for moral. That aside the downing of a few jets/helos will not offset the advantage of an organized military/security apparatus. 

Let's sum up. Smuggling in MANPADS will is politically unacceptable, not likely to make a difference and even dangerous. Again, it seems most are continuing to put the cart before the horse. Before we talk about ways to remove Gaddafi or help the rebels, we need to ask why is it in our interest to do so? Then and only then if we actually have an interest in doing so, we can discuss methods. And as far as methods go, I think no fly zones and MANPADS are not creative and risk long term consequences that would be unacceptable.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/9/2011 1:09:02 AM

  Before we talk about ways to remove Gaddafi or help the rebels, we need to ask why is it in our interest to do so?



-DA

For the US, the interests are:
 
1. Preventing Libya to become Somalia.
 
2. Preventing Libya to become bases for pirates.
 
3. Preventing radical Islamists such as AQM using Libya as viable base.
 
4. Oil.
 
5. Building relation with various factions willing to cooperate with Western nations.
 
Interests being interests, but, like you said previously, none of those are critical to US national interests. No MANPADS or NFZ. First is to help the government in Bengazhi build an army and gradually transform the current fighting force into modern national defense of Libya.
 
Quote    Reply

Plutarch       3/9/2011 2:00:57 AM



 
Before we talk about ways to remove Gaddafi or help the rebels, we need to ask why is it in our interest to do so?








-DA




For the US, the interests are:

 

1. Preventing Libya to become Somalia.

 

2. Preventing Libya to become bases for pirates.


 

3. Preventing radical Islamists such as AQM using Libya as viable base.

 

4. Oil.

 

5. Building relation with various factions willing to cooperate with Western nations.


 

Interests being interests, but, like you said previously, none of those are critical to US national interests. No MANPADS or NFZ. First is to help the government in Bengazhi build an army and gradually transform the current fighting force into modern national defense of Libya.

3 and 4 would be reasons to keep Qaddafi in power. In fact, 1 and 2 would be good reasons to keep in power as well. 5- there is no reason to believe these rebels will be pro-American or pro-Western. So again, why help the rebels?
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/9/2011 11:39:25 AM
AQ and Pirates are not existential threats to the United States. AQ is a neutered(ineffective for 10 years) minor danger and Pirates BARELY qualify as a nuisance. I say this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but the USA over reacted to AQ. AQ is not able to do more than irritate regional Arab governments and has been forced into hiding. As a result it is a symbolic threat only and not easily capable masterminding the kinds of attacks it once could. It certainly could not move into a country like Libya and hope to survive the challenge of a brutal unregulated security force there with excellent HUMINT capability. Moreover, as was demonstrated by Gaddafi after OIF, the Libyans are aware of the consequences of being associated with terrorist organizations.

Pirates are mere cost adder for insurance companies to consider during negotiations AND NOTHING MORE. Operational cost of deploying naval forces off Somalia are offset by political benefit. However do not associate those operations as being effective just because you hear of a daring SEAL team rescue ect. When you sum what those naval forces cost vs the ransom or private security cost you'll understand why I wrote that. 

The moral of the story is neither AQ or Piracy represent realistic reasons for the United States to get militarily involved in Libya. 

With regard to oil, that's an invalid reason as well. As was mentioned by Plutarch, Gaddafi is a best case. Also No matter who wins or loses in Libya, in order to make money Libya MUST SELL the oil. So any temporary disruption during the civil war will be just that. Temporary. If the US were to intervene the risk and duration of disruption are much higher. Historical data shows that. 

The reality is that Libya is a "feel good" mission for most of you. Classic G.I. Joe bs Cobra where Gaddifi is Cobra Commander. A "bad guy" to most folk. It would just "feel good" to remove him so the snap decision to do so is popular to the I'll informed, those who stand to profit(MSN) and those who know that no action is likely but pretending otherwise is what people want to hear. 

Bottom line is just let it happen. Getting involved militarily is simply not worth it.

-DA
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/9/2011 11:43:02 AM



3 and 4 would be reasons to keep Qaddafi in power. In fact, 1 and 2 would be good reasons to keep in power as well. 5- there is no reason to believe these rebels will be pro-American or pro-Western. So again, why help the rebels?

You would be more convincing if Gadhafi has such a great record of being a pro-American or pro-Western leader of Libya like Mubarak. Oh, wait......
 
His son Saif would have been, but it's already too late. Gadhafi is unsupportable even from Arab perspective.
 
Quote    Reply

YelliChink       3/9/2011 12:07:06 PM

AQ and Pirates are not existential threats to the United States. AQ is a neutered(ineffective for 10 years) minor danger and Pirates BARELY qualify as a nuisance. I say this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but the USA over reacted to AQ.


Bottom line is just let it happen. Getting involved militarily is simply not worth it.




-DA


Well, you do know why the USMC's hymn is the way it is.
 
Indeed military involvement is stupid (like I posted many times). But what better can the US do to further both moral and national agenda with means other than military intervention? That is the question. Please don't give me any answer that seemingly coming out of  Ron Paul camp.
 
The US didn't overreact on AQ in 2001. Then and now, big difference. Given the chances, they will come back like vermins. Actually, they are vermins, and should be dealt with like vermins. Military solution to vermins may or may not be counter productive depending on the level of infestation. It will not end before Arabs stop their practice of consaguinity, which will take very long time.
 
Quote    Reply

DarthAmerica       3/9/2011 2:29:35 PM




AQ and Pirates are not existential threats to the United States. AQ is a neutered(ineffective for 10 years) minor danger and Pirates BARELY qualify as a nuisance. I say this with the benefit of 20/20 hindsight but the USA over reacted to AQ.






Bottom line is just let it happen. Getting involved militarily is simply not worth it.










-DA






Well, you do know why the USMC's hymn is the way it is.

 

Indeed military involvement is stupid (like I posted many times). But what better can the US do to further both moral and national agenda with means other than military intervention? That is the question. Please don't give me any answer that seemingly coming out of  Ron Paul camp.

 

The US didn't overreact on AQ in 2001. Then and now, big difference. Given the chances, they will come back like vermins. Actually, they are vermins, and should be dealt with like vermins. Military solution to vermins may or may not be counter productive depending on the level of infestation. It will not end before Arabs stop their practice of consaguinity, which will take very long time.


YC,
Military intervention will do nothing except further entagle the United States with a problem that is not going to matter in the end. The best thing the US could do is what it is doing and publically condemn the violence.
 
With regard to AQ, you do not know what you are talking about. You do not set fire to your house to get rid of vermin. Responses need to be proportional to the threat. AQ needed to be destroyed, but not at the expense of other regions in the world as the Russians, Iranians, N Koreans and anyone else smart enough to take advantage of the GWOT military campaign have shown. Just ask the Georgians.
 
There is no direct military solution to organizations like AQ.
 
-DA
 
Quote    Reply
1 2



 Latest
 News
 
 Most
 Read
 
 Most
 Commented
 Hot
 Topics