The Truth About The Present Revolutionary Uprising In Libya

[Rakhmetov]

http://www.marxist.com/truth-about-present-revolutionary-uprising-libya.htm

The falsity of their sudden concern for the plight of the Libyan people can be seen by comparing their reaction to the war in the Congo, where it is estimated about five million people have been killed in recent years. There was no “humanitarian” intervention there; the reason being that the war was proving quite lucrative to western companies who were using the minerals mined in the Congo in almost slave-like conditions. The various militias were actually backed by one or other of the major imperialist powers.


No to imperialist intervention in Libya (http://www.marxist.com/no-to-imperialist-intervention-in-libya.htm)

http://www.marxist.com/no-to-imperialist-intervention-in-libya.htm

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

Yes to revolution, No to intervention

[Fulanito de Tal]

Although it hasn't been explicitly stated, I believe that NATO is gonna invade. I saw on the CNN that they are sending the USS Kearsarge (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_Kearsarge_(LHD-3)) which carries Marines and was used in the invasion of Iraq. England already sent the HMS Cumberland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Cumberland_(F85)). Plus, Fox News and CNN are running tons of stories on how Gadhafi is a horrible person and Libya needs humanitarian aid.

It's gonna be another God Bless America™ episode.

[punisa]

One of the first people who warned that NATO will attack Libya was Fidel Castro:
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/21february-reflections.html

And I still believe uncle Fidel.

[Fulanito de Tal]

One of the first people who warned that NATO will attack Libya was Fidel Castro:
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/21february-reflections.html

And I still believe uncle Fidel.

http://www.revleft.com/vb/castro-warns-nato-t150469/index.html :castro:

[Os Cangaceiros]

The United States will only intervene directly if the benefits of Libya's oil production (currently Libya isn't on the top 10 list of countries that furnish the USA with oil) outweigh the costs of political capital should such an intervention have negative repurcussions, particularly repurcussions which could reverberate throughout the Arab world at a time of instability and strife. Personally I'm not convinced; I think that an unstable gulf region is far more on their mind at the moment. I think that the USA will keep a close eye on the situation and possibly send the rebels aid, but won't intervene directly (i.e. invasion).

[Rakhmetov]

If they invade not one U.S. embassy in the region will be remain standing and fighters will immigrate to Lybia from all over the Middle East.

[PFay]

I don't believe US will invade - too much fallout which would threaten US interests - especially US oil in Libya. Read my analysis of what is really going on:

"Libya’s Tangled Opposition – Youth, Tribes, Monarchists, Regime Castoffs and Oil"

"A thousand years of history weigh on Libya today. One-hundred forty tribes stretch across three formerly separate kingdoms of what is now Libya. For over a millenium, the three kingdoms, Cyrenaica, Tripolitania and Fezzan, were separated by desert and had little in common... King Idris instituted the neocolonial Kingdom of Libya in the 1950s, to the advantage of Cyrenaican tribes – the Zuwayya and others, which are today revolting..."

[continues at http://theclearview.wordpress.com/2011/03/01/libyas-tangled-opposition/ ]

[scourge007]

If the US and NATO did decide to interfere in Libya's revolution , where would they get the troops from ? They kinda have their hands full with the Taliban right now.

[TwoSevensClash]

If they invade not one U.S. embassy in the region will be remain standing and fighters will immigrate to Lybia from all over the Middle East.
Thats a small price to pay for all the oil they will get.

[khad]

If the US and NATO did decide to interfere in Libya's revolution , where would they get the troops from ? They kinda have their hands full with the Taliban right now.
The delusions of the left are amusing. Libya has a population about 1/5 the size of Iraq's or Afghanistan's, and the manpower requirements would be miniscule compared to those occupational wars. A single modern division will be enough to terrorize that country into submission.

[Nolan]

The delusions of the left are amusing. Libya has a population about 1/5 the size of Iraq's or Afghanistan's, and the manpower requirements would be miniscule compared to those occupational wars. A single modern division will be enough to terrorize that country into submission.

Sorry, but how many troops are in a division? Assuming this is a NATO military.

[khad]

Sorry, but how many troops are in a division? Assuming this is a NATO military.
About 15-20,000. Practically nothing for any large military like the USA's and even less when you consider a NATO joint-venture. The extremely fragmented nature of Libya's tribal politics would also make them easy prey to imperialist divide-and-conquer strategies.

[PFay]

About 15-20,000. Practically nothing for any large military like the USA's and even less when you consider a NATO joint-venture. The extremely fragmented nature of Libya's tribal politics would also make them easy prey to imperialist divide-and-conquer strategies.


About 15-20,000. Practically nothing for any large military like the USA's and even less when you consider a NATO joint-venture. The extremely fragmented nature of Libya's tribal politics would also make them easy prey to imperialist divide-and-conquer strategies.

This is quite a statement.

First, the US are the only ones capable of pulling this off, not NATO without the US. Second, the US has no available divisions to spare. It has 10 in total, all but one are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last is in Korea. Which division did you have in mind? Third, the US doesn't deploy divisions anyway, but brigades, but has no brigades to spare either. 36,000 existing troops are to be rotated into Afghanistan alone this year to join the 110,000 already there and 56,000 are in Iraq to stay. Fourth, it takes 9 months to a year to deploy a force of that size to a new land theatre. There are probably 10 support personnel required for every ONE combat troop (that is, 'only one division' would require 100,000 support non-combat personnel). Fifth, there is only one thing that will unite all tribes in Libya - an invasion by foreign troops - that is, unite them to fight the US, not Qaddafi. Sixth, it would take a very small contingent of Qaddafi supporters to shut down all oil export from Libya. Oil operations of the US, UK and Italy, that is.

And seven, Gates said not even a No-Fly Zone can happen in Libya. Something tells me a major land offensive is even less possible than a fly-over.

If one believes that 'one division' can take over Libya, let me introduce you to a country called Afghanistan - one divided by bickering tribes, which after 110,000 US troops and 10 years the US has almost none of the country under control.

[khad]

This is the biggest pile of rot I've seen all week.

This is quite a statement.

First, the US are the only ones capable of pulling this off, not NATO without the US. Second, the US has no available divisions to spare. It has 10 in total, all but one are in Iraq and Afghanistan. The last is in Korea. Which division did you have in mind? Third, the US doesn't deploy divisions anyway, but brigades, but has no brigades to spare either. 36,000 existing troops are to be rotated into Afghanistan alone this year to join the 110,000 already there and 56,000 are in Iraq to stay. Fourth, it takes 9 months to a year to deploy a force of that size to a new land theatre.

Add all your figures up, and you got less than 200,000 troops. Do you know how many troops are in the US military? 549,015 Active and 563,688 Reserve and National Guard personnel, together with another 242,779 in the Marine Corps, for a total of more than 1.35 million. This figure does not include the 493,107 in the Air Force and the Air Guard and the 430,400 in the Navy.

Why is that? It's simple. The US military is on a 1:6 rotation schedule, which means that for every troop in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are another 6 on leave or deployed elsewhere, the vast majority stateside.

Tighten the rotation schedule ever so slightly, and the troops WILL appear.

All it takes is a phone call - "Tough shit, you don't get another 3 months to spend with your family. Get your gear and your ass ready to ship out."


There are probably 10 support personnel required for every ONE combat troop (that is, 'only one division' would require 100,000 support non-combat personnel).I'm well familiar with the concept of tooth-to-tail ratios of the US Army, and typical figures thrown about are 1:2.5 or 1:3. If you add logistical contractors that might go up to 1:4 or more, but nothing so ludicrous as 1:10. The Soviet Army functioned rather well with a 2:1 tooth-to-tail, as did the US Army for most of WW2.

But don't take my word for it. Why don't you read this Leavenworth paper on the very subject?

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf

And here are some visual aids:

http://imgur.com/uUtoWhttp://i.imgur.com/uUtoW.png
http://imgur.com/lAQWzhttp://imgur.com/lAQWzhttp://i.imgur.com/lAQWz.png (http://i.imgur.com/lAQWz.png)
http://imgur.com/kt4NRhttp://i.imgur.com/kt4NR.png


Fifth, there is only one thing that will unite all tribes in Libya - an invasion by foreign troops - that is, unite them to fight the US, not Qaddafi. Sixth, it would take a very small contingent of Qaddafi supporters to shut down all oil export from Libya. Oil operations of the US, UK and Italy, that is.

If one believes that 'one division' can take over Libya, let me introduce you to a country called Afghanistan - one divided by bickering tribes, which after 110,000 US troops and 10 years the US has almost none of the country under control.Afghanistan is full of mountains and has a population about 5x larger. It at least has terrain and population base suitable for a guerrilla conflict.

In the desert, there will be nowhere to hide for any Libyan resistance. The anti-colonial resistance against the Italians was one long story of failure that ended in complete annihilation. How many Italian troops did Italy, a fifth rate power by any measure, need to accomplish this task? A mere 15,000. Libyan recruits were then used proudly to subjugate Ethiopia. Yep, they were that unified in their principled opposition to colonialism.

With diplomacy, bribery, and a heavy use of air power, the West could easily subjugate Libya with a small ground force. Libya is a country that freaks out when 300 government soldiers make a probing attack on a city. The entire resistance movement can barely count 10,000 able fighters in their ranks.

[PFay]

The US military is on a 1:6 rotation schedule, which means that for every troop in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are another 6 on leave or deployed elsewhere, the vast majority stateside.

Tighten the rotation schedule ever so slightly, and the troops WILL appear.
[...]
I'm well familiar with the concept of tooth-to-tail ratios of the US Army, and typical figures thrown about are 1:2.5 or 1:3. If you add logistical contractors that might go up to 1:4 or more, but nothing so ludicrous as 1:10. The Soviet Army functioned rather well with a 2:1 tooth-to-tail, as did the US Army for most of WW2.

But don't take my word for it. Why don't you read this Leavenworth paper on the very subject?

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf


Thank you for that reference - quite good. I was off on support personnel - the paper shows the ratio has been increasing steadily since WW2 to 1:3 today in Iraq/Afghanistan. This would imply that to support 12,000 combat troops in Libya, one would need an additional 36,000 support personnel. However, private contractors in the military comprise slightly more than combat troops (in Afghanistan 59% of total force - fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/R40764.pdf), so contractors would add another 17,000, for a total of 55,000 troops and contractors for only one combat division.



In the desert, there will be nowhere to hide for any Libyan resistance. The anti-colonial resistance against the Italians was one long story of failure that ended in complete annihilation. How many Italian troops did Italy, a fifth rate power by any measure, need to accomplish this task? A mere 15,000.
[...] With diplomacy, bribery, and a heavy use of air power, the West could easily subjugate Libya with a small ground force.

True, the dessert guerrilla warfare of Muktahr against the Italians failed, but only after 10 years of attempts to stop it by the 'Butcher of Fezzan', and killing of 1/2 million people and internment of one-third of the population of Cerinaica in concentration camps. I find that good evidence of Libya's history of resisting imperialism.

As to invasion forces required, I would point out that McGrath, the authoritative reference cited above, also said that,

"Most theorists generally cite historical precedent when proposing ratios for troop density levels.... The 20 [troops] to 1000 [population] ratio is often considered the minimum effective troop density ratio." - cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_boots.pdf. He goes on to say possibly as low as 13.26 to 1,000 may be 'successful'.

This would seem to indicate that the estimate of 10-12,000 troops to invade Libya, a country of 6-7 million to be overly optimistic. By the estimates of McGrath, the US would need 80-120,000 troops, not 10,000. After all, when the US was getting the pants beat off of it in Iraq in 2005, it had a ratio of 10 troops and contractors per 100,000 population in a country where there was mostly desert and plains - and "nowhere to hide" for the resistance.

I assume you agree with McGrath's analysis.

Anyway, this all started as a discussion of whether the US 'could deploy' one division. The logistics of deploying a 'successful' troop-to-population force in Libya would be huge, if you believe McGrath, particularly while also conducting two other wars simultaneously. This conclusion has some backing in the US military as well - as Sec. of Defense Gate said yesterday, in reference to Libya:

"In my opinion, any future defense secretary who advises the president to again send a big American land army into Asia or into the Middle East or Africa should ‘have his head examined,’ as General MacArthur so delicately put it."

Which is not to say that the US won't invade anyway, of course. :-)

[Rakhmetov]

This is the biggest pile of rot I've seen all week.


Add all your figures up, and you got less than 200,000 troops. Do you know how many troops are in the US military? 549,015 Active and 563,688 Reserve and National Guard personnel, together with another 242,779 in the Marine Corps, for a total of more than 1.35 million. This figure does not include the 493,107 in the Air Force and the Air Guard and the 430,400 in the Navy.

Why is that? It's simple. The US military is on a 1:6 rotation schedule, which means that for every troop in Iraq and Afghanistan, there are another 6 on leave or deployed elsewhere, the vast majority stateside.

Tighten the rotation schedule ever so slightly, and the troops WILL appear.

All it takes is a phone call - "Tough shit, you don't get another 3 months to spend with your family. Get your gear and your ass ready to ship out."

I'm well familiar with the concept of tooth-to-tail ratios of the US Army, and typical figures thrown about are 1:2.5 or 1:3. If you add logistical contractors that might go up to 1:4 or more, but nothing so ludicrous as 1:10. The Soviet Army functioned rather well with a 2:1 tooth-to-tail, as did the US Army for most of WW2.

But don't take my word for it. Why don't you read this Leavenworth paper on the very subject?

http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/mcgrath_op23.pdf

And here are some visual aids:

http://imgur.com/uUtoWhttp://i.imgur.com/uUtoW.png
http://imgur.com/lAQWzhttp://imgur.com/lAQWzhttp://i.imgur.com/lAQWz.png (http://i.imgur.com/lAQWz.png)
http://imgur.com/kt4NRhttp://i.imgur.com/kt4NR.png

Afghanistan is full of mountains and has a population about 5x larger. It at least has terrain and population base suitable for a guerrilla conflict.

In the desert, there will be nowhere to hide for any Libyan resistance. The anti-colonial resistance against the Italians was one long story of failure that ended in complete annihilation. How many Italian troops did Italy, a fifth rate power by any measure, need to accomplish this task? A mere 15,000. Libyan recruits were then used proudly to subjugate Ethiopia. Yep, they were that unified in their principled opposition to colonialism.

With diplomacy, bribery, and a heavy use of air power, the West could easily subjugate Libya with a small ground force. Libya is a country that freaks out when 300 government soldiers make a probing attack on a city. The entire resistance movement can barely count 10,000 able fighters in their ranks.


Oh that's a lot of cant. Look at Algeria!--- How many French soldiers did it take to "bring things under control" in that country during its revolution? Have you seen The Battle Of Algiers? If there is a city in a desert, the city will be the center of revolutionary operations!

[khad]

Oh that's a lot of cant. Look at Algeria!--- How many French soldiers did it take to "bring things under control" in that country during its revolution? Have you seen The Battle Of Algiers? If there is a city in a desert, the city will be the center of revolutionary operations!
Algeria has 35 million people, opposed to Libya's 6.

Furthermore, you're mistaken if you think that Algiers was the center of the rebellion. The resistance was systematically defeated in Algiers and moved its center of operations to the countryside, particularly to the mountain regions. I should be insulted because it's clear that you don't know anything about the history of the Algerian conflict at all.

Try harder before you fail next time.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_war_of_independence#Guerrilla_war


Although successful in engendering an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty within both communities in Algeria, the revolutionaries' coercive tactics suggested that they had not yet inspired the bulk of the Muslim people to revolt against French colonial rule. Gradually, however, the FLN gained control in certain sectors of the Aurès (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aur%C3%A8s), the Kabylie (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kabylie), and other mountainous areas around Constantine and south of Algiers and Oran (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oran). In these places, the FLN established a simple but effective— although frequently temporary—military administration that was able to collect/extort taxes and food and to recruit manpower.

[Invader Zim]

I hate to say it but Khad is quite right, the US military could easily subjugate Libya with a very limited military presence, especially when you consider that any invasion would like as not be a joint NATO venture, and a not inconsiderable proportion of any invasion force or the necessary logicistical roles to support combat forces would be supplied by nations other to the US.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

The anti-colonial resistance against the Italians was one long story of failure that ended in complete annihilation. How many Italian troops did Italy, a fifth rate power by any measure, need to accomplish this task? A mere 15,000. Libyan recruits were then used proudly to subjugate Ethiopia. Yep, they were that unified in their principled opposition to colonialism.
This isn't 1911, I don't think you can generalize about the current fighting ability of Libya because they didn't put up a good fight against Italy. I mean, with all the heavy arms Gaddhafi has imported, the increase in the country's population, and 40 years of anti-Western rhetoric, there's reason to think Libya today is different from Libya during the colonial era. Remember, it took a much smaller army for the British to pacify Iraq in the 10s, 20s and the 40s than America and Britain needed in 2003, and Libya will likely be the same. Consider the Iraqi uprising or the Anglo-Iraqi war. Much smaller armies were required to occupy the countries, despite some violent resistance.



With diplomacy, bribery, and a heavy use of air power, the West could easily subjugate Libya with a small ground force. Libya is a country that freaks out when 300 government soldiers make a probing attack on a city. The entire resistance movement can barely count 10,000 able fighters in their ranks. It wouldn't be as much as Iraq or Afghanistan and would be easy to support compared to those engagements, but it would to some extent be the straw that breaks the camel's back. Especially if they find the soldiers by increasing deployment times ... that increases the number of soldiers on the ground on paper but naturally reduces fighting effectiveness and morale. Considering how the Afghan war is not doing so well right now, I doubt the US government is looking to add more stress on their soldiers.

As for the small army of the rebels ... The resistance movement right now has a militia of 10,000, but it's also 2 weeks into the uprising. I mean, I think creating an army of 10,000 in 2 weeks is a stunning achievement anywhere.

[khad]

I assume you agree with McGrath's analysis.
:rolleyes:

You assume too much. If you read this with any sort of critical eye you would have noticed the inconsistency with which McGrath counted indigenous auxiliaries. In order to have an accurate assessment of the total boots on the ground you will have account for those allied forces which are technically not part of the colonizing nation's armed forces. For some reason he counts colonial Malayan and Gurkhas for the British but not the Philippine Constabulary for the USA?

In the Italian case, they were able to recruit another 2 divisions of Libyan auxiliaries to supplement their one.

The more fragmented a society is, the easier it becomes to divide and bribe one's way to total domination. Countries like Libya and Afghanistan have never been fully unified, even in the face of a presumed invader. Hell, how many British troops did it take to subjugate India for 3 centuries?

[khad]

Khad-this isn't 1911, I don't think you can generalize about the current fighting ability of Libya because they didn't put up a good fight against Italy. I mean, with all the heavy arms Gaddhafi has imported, the increase in the country's population, and 40 years of anti-Western rhetoric, there's reason to think Libya today is different from Libya during the colonial era.
How about a modern example from 1987?

1 Libyan armored brigade vs Chadian light infantry on toyotas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maaten_al-Sarra

Chadians win resulting in the complete annihilation of the Libyan force while suffering only minimal casualties. Chad suffers less than 200 killed and wounded, Libya loses the entire 2500-man force to killed, POW, and MIA in the desert.

The Libyan army hasn't seen significant action since.

You can review the "illustrious" military history of Libya here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_history_of_Libya


It seems, no offense, like you have a beef against Libya. Everything you've posted about Libyans is very negative, and those negative things seem to be phrased as broad generalizations about the Libyan people at large. There is nothing biased in pointing out that Libya has had one of the worst military records of any nation. Unless it receives billions upon billions of foreign aid every year, no tiny nation of 6 million is going to become a regional superpower. That's just common sense you're going to have to accept. I think people are severely overestimating Libya's military prowess when they should really be ranked somewhere between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Actually, probably below both.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

How about a modern example from 1987?

1 Libyan armored brigade vs Chadian light infantry on toyotas...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Maaten_al-Sarra

Chadians win resulting in the complete annihilation of the Libyan force while suffering only minimal casualties. Chad suffers less than 200 killed and wounded, Libya loses the entire 2500-man force to killed, POW, and MIA in the desert.


Yeah, the toyota war was embarrassing. But that was largely thanks to the fact that Gaddhafi's military had some crap commanders (including himself probably) There's a possible parallel to Iraq in that. Saddam's elite Republican Guard were decimated by the US in both wars with few casualties, but the remnants of that Republican Guard, alongside tribesmen and other forces, managed to fight and kill thousands of Americans during the occupation. I think fighting a guerrilla war in Libya would be harder than the invasion itself, much like Iraq.

I was considering the discrepancies between the British wars in Iraq and the recent "Coalition" war in Iraq, where in the old wars, relatively small British armies were needed to pacify Mesopotamia against the larger forces required of today. This is thanks to the proliferation of small arms, education, nationalist ideologies and other numerous technological and cultural changes from 70 years ago, and so I think it's hard to draw parallels.


There is nothing biased in pointing out that Libya has had one of the worst military records of any nation. Unless it receives billions upon billions of foreign aid every year, no tiny nation of 6 million is going to become a regional superpower. That's just common sense you're going to have to accept. I think people are severely overestimating Libya's military prowess when they should really be ranked somewhere between Armenia and Azerbaijan.Since I posted, I edited that out :P. Anyhow, you are correct that there are simple demographic realities. Libya is not Saddam's Iraq for sure. But it does have heavy weaponry.

[khad]

Yeah, the toyota war was embarrassing. But that was largely thanks to the fact that Gaddhafi's military had some crap commanders (including himself probably) There's a possible parallel to Iraq in that.
And when you consider that these are the best trained commanders those countries had to offer...

Saddam's elite Republican Guard were decimated by the US in both wars with few casualties, but the remnants of that Republican Guard, alongside tribesmen and other forces, managed to fight and kill thousands of Americans during the occupation. I think fighting a guerrilla war in Libya would be harder than the invasion itself, much like Iraq.
But Iraq is largely "pacified" now thanks to local auxiliaries. That's more or less victory from the imperialists' point of view. Right now it's just Iraqis killing other Iraqis.

Since I posted, I edited that out :P. Anyhow, you are correct that there are simple demographic realities. Libya is not Saddam's Iraq for sure. But it does have heavy weaponry.
Libya actually has an insane amount of weaponry (albeit severely outdated) for the actual size of the army and its population. They estimate that the army would need to be at least 3 times larger to actually utilize and support it all.

The fact that at least half of the army only exists on paper doesn't help at all. The rebellion only has 10,000 defected soldiers and volunteers. If that army was actually its claimed strength 50,000, the protesters wouldn't have been able to hold half the country.

[Hit The North]

Every American President needs his own war and Obama will be looking out for his. After all, he doesn't want to be labelled as another Jimmy Carter! But I don't think Libya will be it.

Unwelcome intervention (and the opposition in Libya has made clear it would be unwelcome) would be strategic suicide when the region is in such a state of flux and the US still has an opportunity to make friends with the new regimes. Alienating new democracies is the last thing a Democrat president wants to be seen doing.

Of course, strategic logic isn't necessarily the driver of US foreign policy.

[khad]

Of course, strategic logic isn't necessarily the driver of US foreign policy.
If it's done, it'll be rationalized with all sorts of humanitarian rhetoric. And Obama will come out smelling like a rose. If anything, he'll only be bashed by for spending money on a third world nation. So far rebel leaders have asked for air strikes, arms, humanitarian aid, and training. A request for ground troops won't be that far off.

[wq11xxx]

make it smooth revolution

[danyboy27]

Somebody need to explain me why middle eastern countries like Iraq and libya (i know, libya is in africa..) stockpile weapons like that.

I remember report from the Iraq occupation, there was so many weapon stockpiles that the u.s forces where not able to secure them all and alot felt into the hand of the insurgents.

[khad]

Somebody need to explain me why middle eastern countries like Iraq and libya (i know, libya is in africa..) stockpile weapons like that.
And you were indignant when I called you out for your first world bias.

Before you ask what is so exceptional about "Middle Eastern" states, explain to me why the US Army still retains vietnam-era M16s, flak vests, and thousands upon thousands of M113s in storage.

[Omsk]

A highly unsatable region,and generally a difficult place to live,these countries have been on the choping block of many super-powers,and the people live in a fear,not to mention the activity of many para-military groups that operate in those regions.
Although,you should not forget that the US,for instance,has alot of civilians who own more than enough firearms.

[khad]

A highly unsatable region,and generally a difficult place to live,these countries have been on the choping block of many super-powers,and the people live in a fear,not to mention the activity of many para-military groups that operate in those regions.
Although,you should not forget that the US,for instance,has alot of civilians who own more than enough firearms.
More like Gaddafi wasn't rocking international arms market.

Every military puts tons of shit in storage every time they introduce a new generation of gear. Why? Because it costs pretty much nothing to do so. Slather on some rust protectant and bury it in some warehouse for the next 50 years. Broken down equipment is also mothballed if the military doesn't feel like it's worth the effort to repair - they keep it around for spare parts.

Old equipment in storage is eventually destroyed and reclaimed for scrap or sold off to other countries. Libya was obviously not doing either particularly well.

[Robocommie]

If it's done, it'll be rationalized with all sorts of humanitarian rhetoric. And Obama will come out smelling like a rose. If anything, he'll only be bashed by for spending money on a third world nation. So far rebel leaders have asked for air strikes, arms, humanitarian aid, and training. A request for ground troops won't be that far off.

I can hear the Republican cries of "Kenyan anti-colonialism" already.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

And when you consider that these are the best trained commanders those countries had to offer...


On the contrary, I think Gaddhafi probably purposefully did away with the most effective commanders in favor of the most personally loyal. That's the problem with these tyrannical governments. The best equipped and trained units are led by the most politically loyal commanders, not the most militarily adept.



But Iraq is largely "pacified" now thanks to local auxiliaries. That's more or less victory from the imperialists' point of view. Right now it's just Iraqis killing other Iraqis.


True, but Iraq wasn't pacified for 5 years, and it was much harder for the US to pacify Iraq in the 2000s than it was for Britain to pacify it during the Imperial era. Likewise, it will be harder for the US to occupy Libya than it was for Italy to do so 90 years ago



Libya actually has an insane amount of weaponry (albeit severely outdated) for the actual size of the army and its population. They estimate that the army would need to be at least 3 times larger to actually utilize and support it all.

The fact that at least half of the army only exists on paper doesn't help at all. The rebellion only has 10,000 defected soldiers and volunteers. If that army was actually its claimed strength 50,000, the protesters wouldn't have been able to hold half the country.

Here's the question-could NATO feasibly secure these arms before anti-NATO forces did? Not just talking about Gaddhafi loyalists, but religious fanatics and other political trends in Libya probably wouldn't take an occupation lying down. One problem with Iraq was that rebels on all sides managed to seize a lot of the arms, and the US sent too few troops to occupy all of the arms depots and as such left many unprotected for some time.

[danyboy27]

And you were indignant when I called you out for your first world bias.

Before you ask what is so exceptional about "Middle Eastern" states, explain to me why the US Army still retains vietnam-era M16s, flak vests, and thousands upon thousands of M113s in storage.

its not first world bias, i didnt even knew the us army still had those weapon stored.

how could i be biaised about the first world if i dont even know we are still storing this old stuff.

but i understand, you hate my face, you are a bigot, so yea, i get it, i just get of your way in the future.

[Robocommie]

its not first world bias, i didnt even knew the us army still had those weapon stored.

how could i be biaised about the first world if i dont even know we are still storing this old stuff.

That's just it, you assumed this was something that only "Middle Eastern" countries do.

[danyboy27]

That's just it, you assumed this was something that only "Middle Eastern" countries do.

beccause you guy just mentionned that libya had a verry impressive stockpile of weapon, and i remembered that Iraq also had a huuge stockpile of weapon has well.

i didnt knew it was something standard for the west to stockpile has well.

i am not biaised, if anything, just ignorant of the military situation in the west and in the world in general.

i assumed something beccause of the info i had on this forum. Dont blame me for being born in the first world, i have no control on where i come from.

[Rakhmetov]

Khad, you are under complete error. It is you who does not have clue what you are talking about.

You people have never read "The End Of Military History" by Professor Bacevich.

The imperialists do not have the upperhand anymore.

Read Pause & Reflect:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/29-6

[khad]

Khad, you are under complete error. It is you who does not have clue what you are talking about.

You people have never read "The End Of Military History" by Professor Bacevich.

The imperialists do not have the upperhand anymore.

Read Pause & Reflect:

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/07/29-6
Oh? Prove to me that the FLN wasn't systematically annihilated in Algiers and had to relocate their base of operations to the mountains.

Prove to me that the open desert is a viable terrain for a guerrilla war.

All due respect to Andrew Bacevich (why do you call him professor? are you at BU?), but you can't declare the failure of "doctrine" unless you contextualize what "doctrine" means and delineate its relevancy for particular military circumstances. I'm looking for at least some recognition of the transition from Airland Battle to today's Network-Centric Warfare. Both are quite different in their strengths and weaknesses, and I would agree that the light force proponents have degraded the capabilities of the US armed forces to fight a large conflict.

I think the fundamental problem with many so-called leftists is that they are congenitally incapable of visualizing the perspective of the colonizer. Your criteria for an occupation victory are so lofty that I don't believe any military in history has ever achieved them. Get this through your head. A "win" for the colonizer is to reduce the subject population to a state where they can no longer effectively challenge their authority. Ideally this comes through the use of local agents, who can do the dirty day-to-day job of beating down the unruly rabble. Case in point, once Americans stop dying and Iraqis spend their time killing other Iraqis, even if deployments have to continue, that is considered a victory. That's how the British Empire maintained its global hegemony for nearly 3 centuries. The thing with Bacevich is that he is a small-c conservative who idealizes early republican virtues of civic responsibility and cannot comprehend how or why Americans would engage in long-term military actions which compromise the values upon which the United States was built.

Empires don't think that way. If a colonizer can force a perpetual bloody stalemate in which it holds the upper hand, that is victory. Look at the Philippines.

[Luís Henrique]

I hate to say it but Khad is quite right, the US military could easily subjugate Libya with a very limited military presence, especially when you consider that any invasion would like as not be a joint NATO venture, and a not inconsiderable proportion of any invasion force or the necessary logicistical roles to support combat forces would be supplied by nations other to the US.

Of course. The problem is political, not logistic.

Luís Henrique

[Rakhmetov]

Khad, what if Lybia does not have 30 million but 6 million people. Arabs will pour in from all over Africa and the Middle-East to fight the Americans. Qaddafi planted more than 40 million trees during his term which should provide decent cover for insurgents. Imperialists are paper tigers.

[IndependentCitizen]

If the US and NATO did decide to interfere in Libya's revolution , where would they get the troops from ? They kinda have their hands full with the Taliban right now.


UK has only about 10,000 troops in Afghanistan, and we're not in Iraq. The UK has about 110,000 active all together.

The US military is huge, and I don't think even 10% is deployed in occupation. So there's still a huge chance of military intervention.

And personally, I think the neoliberals' experiment in Iraq hasn't worked. Since the country hasn't seen any economic growth despite corporations investing billions to exploit them, so Libya would be a 2nd chance for these arseholes.

[Luís Henrique]

Khad, what if Lybia does not have 30 million but 6 million people. Arabs will pour in from all over Africa and the Middle-East to fight the Americans.

This is a fantasy. Why would they do that? They have their own domestic problems to deal with. Tunisia and Egypt haven't yet sorted out what to do with their revolutions. The others are dealing with their own tyrants. Why would they be sucked into an unclear fight between hated Americans and an even-more-hated local tyrant, similar-but-perhaps-worse to the tyrants they are trying to topple?


Qaddafi planted more than 40 million trees during his term which should provide decent cover for insurgents.

Libya has 1.8 million square kilometers. This would be more than 20 trees per square kilometer; it seems to be some Gaddafyist propaganda, rather than anything real. Unless, of course, the plan was a failure, with the trees dying before adulthood.


Imperialists are paper tigers.

To the extent that they are, it is because they are politically uncapable of using their military might. But the military might is very much real; if they are able to overcome political hesitation, they will easily occupy Libya in one or two weeks. The question is, do they want that? And why do they or do they not?

Luís Henrique

[Mather]

There is nothing biased in pointing out that Libya has had one of the worst military records of any nation. Unless it receives billions upon billions of foreign aid every year, no tiny nation of 6 million is going to become a regional superpower. That's just common sense you're going to have to accept. I think people are severely overestimating Libya's military prowess when they should really be ranked somewhere between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Actually, probably below both.

Your right. In North Africa, Libya and Tunisia are the weakest in terms of military strength. Ben Ali deliberately kept the Tunisian army small and underfunded in order to weaken them vs his own security and militia forces. In Libya it is more a case of general incompetence, corruption and the policy of selecting military offficers according to regime loyalty rather than strategic and tactical competence. Libya's war in Chad in the 1980s ended in a huge and very costly defeat for Libya. The over supplied and poorly trained Libyan army was defeated at the hands of a very poor country that had an army that was supplied with a fraction of what Libya had.

Egypt is the biggest military power in North Africa, followed by Algeria and Morocco.

[PFay]

Just a followup on Libya - the untold story about the Fezzan:
theclearview.wordpress.com/2011/03/15/fezzan/

"It has been asked recently, why, after thousands of articles on Libya and the uprising, there has been almost nothing published about the Fezzan, the southern of the three regions of Libya. Every journalist has reported breathlessly on each skirmish and every village on the coast – from Benghazai in Cyrenaica to Tripoli in Tripolitania, but not a word on the Fezzan… why?"
[more...]

[heftieleftie]

Yes to revolution, No to intervention

No this isn't a revolution, Yes the Libyan rebels and foreign bombers are a package deal

[ckaihatsu]

No war against Libya!


By Freedom Road Socialist Organization

Following a UN Security Council vote on the evening of March 17, an attack on Libya is imminent. The United States, Britain and France are expected to begin air strikes in a matter of days or even hours. All people of conscience should stand firmly against this act of war.

Just as in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere, this war will be waged under the pretense of humanitarian intervention. But just as in Iraq and Afghanistan, military intervention by the U.S. and its allies will be done for the benefit of the rich and powerful at the expense of working and oppressed people both here and in Libya. Countless civilians will die as a result of these attacks and countless dollars will be taken from over-stretched budgets and social programs to fund a new war. The lessons of history are clear in showing us that the outcome of the war, if the U.S., Britain and France have their way, will be in favor of the interests of the rich, not in favor of democracy and self-determination for the people of Libya.

Since day one of the crisis in Libya, the corporate media has been in motion, preparing public opinion for war with Libya. Likewise, since the beginning of the crisis, the western, imperialist powers have been maneuvering militarily to take advantage of the situation. Meanwhile, it is clear that the rebels in Libya are not of one mind. Some of their leaders are tied to the old CIA-funded National Front for the Salvation of Libya, which would like to see Libya’s oil industry completely privatized, meaning an end to the current free health care and free education programs enjoyed by the Libyan people. Some are monarchists and others who wish to turn back the clock on Libyan social progress. Undoubtedly, war with Libya will mean the most reactionary forces among the rebels coming to power if Gaddafi’s government is defeated by the guns and bombs of the west. Progressive people in the Middle East and around the world want an independent Libya, not a new puppet government like those that exist under occupied Iraq and Afghanistan.

The patriotic people of Libya will resist this war by any means necessary. We in the Freedom Road Socialist Organization intend to do our part to show them solidarity. This means, first and foremost, firmly standing against U.S. intervention. We will organize and join rallies, demonstrations and other mass actions in the coming days to make sure that it is heard loud and clear:

No War Against Libya!

Read more News and Views from the Peoples Struggle at http://www.fightbacknews.org. You can write to us at [email protected]
Sent to [email protected]: unsubscribe | update profile | forward to a friend