I Miss Peter Sellers
I mean, who else could present the reality of Nicolas Sarkozy in the film version of the Libyan adventure.
I’m telling you that Sarkozy has already had the second fitting for the flight suit he’s going to wear when he lands on the deck of the Charles de Gaulle. He has probably had a “Mission Accomplie!” banner in his closet since the second day of air strikes.
Here’s the bovine excrement that is being proposed to make arming the Libyan rebels “legal”:
The arms embargo was established by UN Security Council Resolution 1970 in February, but the no-fly zone was established by UNSCR 1973 in March. Since UNSCR 1973 gives those enforcing the no-fly zone wide latitude to “protect the civilian population”, it overrides the limitations imposed by UNSCR 1970.
The NATO Secretary General has diplomatically said “Horse pucky”. The NATO council doesn’t really want to even discuss it. Not one of the defense chiefs of any of the NATO members supports this view.
Sarkozy is the cheerleader for this concept, and you have the US Secretary of State, and UK Foreign Secretary talking like this isn’t the stupidest idea to come down the pike since Dubya was in the White House. You do not protect the “civilian population” by handing out a lot of stuff that explodes and kills people to a bunch of amateurs who know next to nothing about weapons.
It is bad enough when people are intentionally killed in wars, but handing ordnance to the untrained Libyan rebels will result in people dying by accident.
The goal of this operation is “protecting civilians”. Arming the rebels doesn’t require a legal defense, it requires a real moral justification.
Oh, this thing is now officially know as: Unified Protector. [NATO really needs some marketing people. Maybe they could hire the guys who do the GEICO ads.]
9 comments
Duffy, actually you are the one in an embarrassing position because, you see, in this case, I agree with both of you. Horrors!
If you need assistance in reversing positions in the middle of things for the purpose of always being on the opposite side of an issue from an opponent, please consult Newt Gingrich (R), former Speaker of the House of Representatives. He is a consummate master at midstream horse-changing.
The justification has been supplying weapons to use against armor, but the government forces are getting out of their armor to avoid air attacks. You ship in a lot of anti-tank weapons, and the untrained morons will use them. Armor-piercing rounds go through walls as well as armor plating and cause the death of the people hiding behind those walls.
Target selection for explosive munitions is much better left to people who know the difference between combatants and non-combatants, and also know the blast radius of the weapons. NATO has rules of engagement, the rebels don’t.
The rebel “advance” was about two regiments of light infantry that got pushed back by a couple of brigades of heavy infantry with heavy weapons support. Until the rebels understand how to mount an assault and have the capability of sustaining it, they should stay with “hit and run” operations.
It’s nice to see that the recognition across the political spectrum is that this is a truly bad idea. This type of thinking is how you end up in Vietnam, Iraq, etc.
You can’t impose democracy. People have to want it enough to fight for it.
Can’t nuke the place, Duffy old sod. It has oil.
– Badtux the Snarky Penguin
Agree Bryan (what a surprise!) 😉 😀
I’ve been trying to research where these *Rebels* came from… You know some of my background, and probably suspect more, and it’s been bothering me. I don’t know why exactly (my head still isn’t working very well yet, but my instincts seem to be OK). Anyway, during my searches online using keywords I’ve learned long ago, I came across some interesting publications. I have no idea of the accuracy of this one for example, but it does answer some questions. See what you think Bryan. 🙂
The CIA’s Libya Rebels: The Same Terrorists who Killed US, NATO Troops in Iraq
As an (relevant) aside, we both know the CIA has been very active in Libya since at least the 60’s, so I have no problem believing their involvement.
I’m still going through this document, but I am finding it fascinating on many levels, of which the conflict in Libya is but a minor part. If it’s at all accurate, it seems we can thank Libya and Saudi Arabia (which we have known for years now) for most of the terrorist troubles in the World in recent years.
Yes… The USA really picks nice friends (of course, these particular types of friends eminently suit the real US agenda).
This one is interesting, though I don’t yet know how accurate the stated *facts* are. 😉 🙂
World cheers as the CIA plunges Libya into chaos
I do know that at least some of what that blog article purports is factual (at least somewhat). Gaddafi has always fought off foreign Nationals & companies from stealing their oil, and did distribute the oil revenues to the people (though a Lion’s share went to his family and corrupt politicians). Given the size of the population and the size of the oil revenues, even a small distribution is significant. It’s also true that Gaddafi holds no official rank or office, but he does wield considerable influence.
I guess I’ll do some more digging… 🙂
With the “Colonel” you never know what to believe, but he has delusions of leading some great coalition. When the Arabs turned him down, he shifted to an African coalition.
In pursuit of his delusions he has funded every whacko organization that wanted to do nasty things [outside of Libya, of course]. He helped out every guerrilla organization in West Africa, and has been spending money for sundry whackos around the Persian Gulf.
The big thing to remember about Libya, and the main reason things came unglued is the same as Sudan – the part of the country with the natural resources didn’t see any of the money. In Sudan it all went North, and in Libya it all went West. The oil is in Eastern Libya [Benghazi], but all of the new construction and services are in Western Libya [Tripoli].
I would expect the real volunteers to fight “enemies of Islam” to come from Eastern Libya, because that’s where the poverty is, among the oil fields and refineries. Poverty and religious extremism tend to go hand-in-hand, just look at the American South.
He wasn’t always crackers. He figured out early on that controlling the oil was the key to controlling Libya and being “important” in the world. He has used the money to buy tribal allegiances, which is the easiest way of controlling the country.
Because he has been such a PITA and supporter of whackoes, the CIA has always had a lot of people in the country. Instead of rebar, the support element in most of Libya’s embassies is the wiring for the bugs of various governments keeping tabs on the Libyans. If you are wealthy enough to have spies, you have spies in Libya.
It isn’t a surprise that the Arab League jumped on the bomb Libya bandwagon. When he was on his Pan-Arabia kick, he caused trouble for a lot of Middle Eastern countries.
If the CIA started this, they would be taking credit, informally of course. What they are probably involved in at the moment is using laser target designators to assist in the bombing campaign.
This is another “college graduates can’t get work, and people who do have jobs are being screwed” rebellion, like Tunisia and Egypt. If the West levels the pitch and stays out of it, whoever emerges will probably be at least neutral towards them. This is a former colony, so they don’t exactly trust Europe.
The rebels don’t seem to understand that they already control the wealth of Libya, which is why I don’t think this is a foreign adventure. They keep trying to take more territory, but they already have enough to “starve” Tripoli.
All true of course. 🙂 One thing that alternately annoys & amuses me is when watching the nightly news watching the Rebels all excited with victory one night, and running for their lives the next! The definitely fail *Guerrilla Warfare 101*. It’s been over 25 years since I was taught the *rules*, let’s see how my memory is…
1. You must have the support of the locals (duh!!)
Mao Tse-Tung once said, “the guerrilla must move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea.” The local people provide the guerrilla with food, shelter, and places to train, as well as information about the enemy. Without the people the guerrilla is just a target hiding (and usually starving) in the wilderness.
2. A Guerrilla force must never count on outside help or supplies.
The support of an outside “great power” providing weaponry, finances, and/or logistical support would always be nice, but should never be counted or planned upon, and should not be required for the success of guerrilla operations. A guerrilla unit should have the skills to buy or steal everything they need from the enemy.
During the Vietnam conflict, the Viet Cong were for a very long time equipped with some of the finest weaponry the US government could provide, and the same goes for Iraq & Afghanistan.
3. Indoctrination and ideology are essential to a guerrilla movement’s success.
A certain number of individuals may fight just for the sake of fighting, but to really build numbers you must give people something worth fighting for that they can believe in.
4. Understand how limited guerrillas really are.
While easily able to harass and hinder, a guerrilla force is not capable of occupation in the face of a determined, well-organized and supplied resistance. They can run amok when all they’re facing is infantry, even regular infantry, but when the tanks and planes show up they run or they die. Guerrilla movements can drive enemy generals to near insanity and hamper their ability to operate, but it takes a regular *real* army to make the final move in a revolution. This does not mean a guerrilla leader need to build his own army, though some have done so. More common is co-opting existing generals by indoctrination, blackmail, or even kidnapping.
While it is very difficult for a guerrilla force to win, it’s equally difficult for them to lose. Because being a guerrilla is as much about mindset as equipment or training, they can fade back into the population as quickly as they sprang up, only to return again when the conditions are right. When lead well, guerrillas never even attempt to confront their enemies under anything other than ideal conditions.
Mao (again): “When the enemy advances, withdraw; when he stops, harass; when he tires, strike; when he retreats, pursue.” If the enemy won’t stand and fight, and looks exactly like a local once he’s ditched his rifle, it’s just about impossible to win a battle with him.
This does not mean guerrilla forces are invincible, far from it. Guerrilla movements are created by external conditions, and it is only by controlling and removing these external conditions that they can be reliably defeated. Sometimes this is simply not possible… a brutal, corrupt dictatorship is not going to introduce land reform or give away its power, no matter how many soldiers die in ambushes. In such places the best that can be hoped for is a bloody stalemate, with both sides grinding away at each other, sometimes for decades at a time.
When the conditions can be alleviated, guerrilla movements evaporate like water on a hot street. However, these conditions are not obvious by any means, and their solutions are not at all simple. Roads, bridges, schools, and hospitals can be built by the dozen, but if half the project is sucked up in graft and the other half is spent meeting the requirements on the cheap & nasty, nothing will be gained. Children can be sent to schools and protected on safe streets but if it requires the locals to be uprooted from the land of their ancestors they’ll simply move right back where they started, and send their sons to fight the infidel. Fences can be constructed and leaders assassinated, but as long as settlements are built in the heart of an erstwhile homeland while bags of money are being handed over the border by cynical fools, nothing will change.
So when you hear the report of a bombing, consider the targets. Were they soldiers, or their supporters? Were they instead common people, or those known to help them? Are soldiers working with the locals, or are they trying to sweep the opposition aside so that a “new order” can take hold? Are the guerrillas drawn from the local population, or are they filled with ranks of “foreigners” from other places? Do the guerrillas have a safe haven to operate from, or terrain to use as cover for their operations, or are they stuck with flat, exposed country in which even dead dogs can be spotted a half mile away?
Phew! That will do as a summary of Guerrilla Warfare 101! 😉 Part of my training was to read the “Selected Works of Mao Tse-tung” (1937). Vol IX was “On Guerrilla Warfare” (which was mostly related to China’s struggle against the strong and victorious Japanese imperialism.)
BTW Bryan… I Miss Peter Sellers too! Been thinking about my favorite movies of his, and decided to watch “The Mouse That Roared” once again. There are so many I liked, but if I had to choose three (that might be relevant here and in no particular order):
The Party
The Mouse That Roared
Trial And Error (with Lord Richard Attenborough)
Sadly, his films went rapidly downhill after the 60’s. There were a few movies that were in his old style and funny, but they were few and far between sadly. *sigh*
😆 😆 I was just looking at some IT news (trying to get info on the new AMD 990 chipset and *Bulldozer* CPU’s due out *any day now, maybe* (actually, chipset is due to be officially announced in the next month or so, the CPU date is June 11, I think). 😉 Anyway… someone posted this pic, which I had to post here, of course! 😆
Thanks to TechPowerUp for this image
I have no idea where the original came from. Who cares? 😉 😆
How do you spell Chalabi in Libyan: Khalifa Hifter.
This guy was one of the “Colonel’s” top commanders in his move on Chad, but then he “magically” switched sides. When Chad finally managed to get a decent, real government, Hifter and his entire family received visas and moved to the US, Vienna, Virginia, about 7 miles from Langley. That was under Reagan. He has spent a couple of decades living well despite no visible means of support, and had an anti-“Colonel” army that existed as a post office box.
Now, he “felt compelled” to return to Libya and “help his country”.
They could have at least supplied him with some experienced trainers, because he hasn’t been in the field for over 20 years. He was a field-grade infantry officer, so he should be able to command medium-sized formations, but he doesn’t have any lieutenants and captains to lead smaller units.
It is hard to determine how effective he can be, as, like Chalabi, he doesn’t have a local following.
They should just switch to defense, and let Western Libya wither on the vine.