The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
How did Moammar win?
Lord Jezo
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
Before the earthquake I kept reading how he was on the run, how the rebels had taken over the country and he was desperate in his palace offering money to anyone who would help him, the whole world's leadership said he needed to step down, and that things were going to change.
The Japanese earthquake hits, I stop reading bout Moammar for a week, and now everything has completely reversed, the crowds are cheering him, the rebels are all but beaten into a single city, and nothing will change.
What the heck happened?
The Japanese earthquake hits, I stop reading bout Moammar for a week, and now everything has completely reversed, the crowds are cheering him, the rebels are all but beaten into a single city, and nothing will change.
What the heck happened?
I KISS YOU!
Lord Jezo on
0
Posts
The rebels were winning battles by random guys with guns all just swarming. Over time, the lack of organization, equipment and training allowed the government troops to regain the upper hand.
For instance, the rebels could have stopped the government advance despite their artillery and air cover had they thought at some point to dig trenches. But they didn't.
No no. In protecting themselves from bombardment when defending cities along the narrow coastal strip, not in the sense of WWI style trenches that created 100 mile fronts.
Rigorous Scholarship
A real war, not a "conflict" or "peacekeeping action" or any of the other terms used to describe half-committed fighting limited by rules and conditions.
Actual warfare is extremely effective, extremely ugly, and usually is only beaten by an opponent who's better at waging it. The idealistic Ghandi stuff only really works when the other side isn't willing to fully commit to war, like in Egypt.
Try telling that to the idealistic Ghandi proponents who argue for pacifism even in the case of war.
Afghanistan showed the success possible with using a local ground force and western air power to win a military victory. And also the limit of changing a regiem being called a success
Considering the ability to use Italy as a ground base for the air force, it'd be nice to see a no-fly zone, followed by a real military intervention. Armored Vehicles in the desert have a bad track-record in the last 20 years vs the USAF.
I hear they are all on drugs.
So that probably makes them easy to freak out.
They lost half their strength in bat country.
It'd be nice to see some muscle-flexing out of Europe, since its literally their back yard. Its closer to Spain/France/Italy than any of the Balkans shit was.
Yeah honestly I don't know what we should do. Anything involving our military is going to turn into a war in Libya, no matter what. Seems like a good opportunity to just give the rebels a bunch of weapons and equipment but a) seems like that would escalate too and b) how the fuck do we know if these guys are trustworthy and wouldn't just turn into another Taliban-like regime that we need to come back and dismantle in 20 years?
The phrase used by the U.S. Navy's strategic thinkers (and probably elsewhere in DOD) is "Disconnectedness Equals Danger." The more connected your government is to the global economy and the international community, the more you have to lose by exercising force against either your own people or another nation-state. Conversely, the more disconnected your government is, the less you have to lose -- and not only that, but the rest of the international community has less soft-power leverage to wield in disincentivizing you away from the use of force, which makes a military solution to any diplomatic conflict increasingly more-likely. So in Egypt's case, economic and diplomatic ties to the west made it untenable for Mubarak to use force against his rioting populace because the international community wouldn't stand for it. Whereas in Qaddafi's case, he doesn't really have anything more to lose by using indiscriminate violence.
On broader strategic topics, this is why European powers are more eager to engage with Iran than the United States' elected politicians have been. The thought is that normalizing relations with Iran will gradually force them also to normalize their own internal politics by increasing their reliance on the rest of the world at large.
What ability? Berlusconi loves Gaddhafi. He's not going to let that happen.
Well, in this case it would be unlikely that occupation would be needed. Just destroying Gaddafi's military capabilities. Gulf War 1, not 2. Honestly, U.S. would roll all over Gaddafi in less then a week through pure air power alone. It would be no contest. I don't see the likely hood of any casualties.
Might actually raise spirits at the States.
What you're discussing are tactics. What you're missing is a strategy. In a country that's been ruled by an autocratic dictator for 40 years which has no opposition leaders or political parties, how do you determine who is responsible for keeping the lights on once the existing power is deposed? How is order maintained until that determination is made?
One of the things NPR pointed out is that one of the towns recently retaken by Qadaffi's forces was done so very easily. The rebels managed to push Qadaffi back and instead of fortifying their position or keeping the heat on, the immediately began to celebrate. Not long after tanks rolled back in.
Secondly, it took a little while for Qadaffi to gather his forces. Libya has no military. Well, it does, but in practice it does not. Qadaffi ruled Libya through the use of secret police. He had to gather a mercenary force from Africa to mount a counter attack.
This has the unfortunate side affect of creating pogroms in Free Libya where Libyans are attacking and forcing non Libyan Africans to leave the country out of fear that they may be subversive elements.
The rebels have a government in place actually. Its currently running the eastern part of the country, made up of former Libyan government officials who defected.
If we blow up Gaddafi they could take over the country as a transitional government.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
They may suck at military stuff, but they got the civil stuff taken pretty well care of in Bengazi (sp).
Well, this isn't an invasion where every existing institution of the previous order is demolished. With the defectors against Gaddafi including politicians and military officers I'm sure something can be established - especially when Libya is smaller in both size and population then the two aforementioned examples, and also without the widespread and ingrained ethnic and religious divides. An pro-Gaddafi insurgency should his forces be defeated is also very - very - unlikely since his forces consist of mercenaries and last remaining loyalists without much motivation to stay in the game.
China and Russia abstained, the vote went through.
Gadaffi sure hasn't won yet.
Rigorous Scholarship