OK, so Libya vindicates the "Afghan model" of warfare*

[Cain]

But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?

I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers.  But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists.  Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.

Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do.  And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.

Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law".  So, uh, great. 

(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)

[Adios]

Probably not a popular opinion, but they may just be better off under Ghadafi.

[Cain]

Well, Gaddhafi supporters and other opponents of the rebels certainly will be.  The rebels are not adverse to imprisoning and killing civilians, it should be recalled.

As for the long term...it's hard to say.  But the most modern instances of war, from Chechnya down, show that winning is relatively easy, keeping the peace is damn hard work.  Russians entered Chechnya, second time around, in 1999, but didn't really pacify the region until 2007, after the FSB butchered the rebel leadership (and lots of other people besides).  Afghanistan...well, look at it.  Baghdad was relatively peaceful for, like, a week after Saddam fled and it fell, and they're still having random suicide bombings over there.  Lebanon is a mess, an empty shell that Hezbollah wears like some kind of ghoulish mask, while Israel sulks and pouts and abuses the Palestinians instead.

The past track record is not very good.

As far as I can see, there are three major forces that make up the rebels: the Berbers, Royalist Loyalists and Islamists.  The first two may play nice...I honestly don't know enough about Libyan history under the monarchy to comment, except to note that Berber was an official language back then, and that Gaddafi was very brutal to the Berbers during his rule.  So they may cooperate.  Jihadi don't surf, though.  And there were a lot of jihadis around Benghazi, and these jihadis may have had the clout to assassinate General Younis.

There are also lots of African migrant workers who are having the shit beaten out of them for being "Gaddafi mercenaries".  They're a potential fourth player in this, though at the moment they simply don't have any kind of organization or leadership, as you would expect.

[Adios]

Yeah, almost always after an overthrow there are long periods of unrest and suppression. Too often it ends up being a change in name only.

[Cain]

We can't rule out pro-Gaddafi terrorism, either.  Reports from all the major news stations are saying "the rebels have taken the city unopposed" and even the rebels are saying "its been too easy".

Gaddafi ain't a complete moron.  I don't know if he is in that compound or not, the one where all the fighting is, but he likely noted Saddam's strategy for continuing the war even after the fall of Baghdad.  And Gaddafi is an old pro at terrorism.  Do we know where his gold stockpiles are?  His foreign mercenaries, the Belarussians and the Serbians?

[Doktor Howl]

Apparently, Ghaddafy ran out of loot to pay his mercs with.

Anyway, he's supposedly holed up in a bunker somewhere.

[Doktor Howl]

They've captured his bunker, he was already gone.

Salizoran influence suspected.

[Cain]

His compound was just looted.  He wasn't present, apparently.

Also, I don't know about money, but his gold stocks seemed significant.  Then again, gold isn't easy to carry around.  Either way, Gaddafi was talking a lot about Mao in the last couple of months, that he would abandon cities like Tripoli in light of that seems a fairly solid assumption.

There was just some speculation on ITN News that Gaddafi was headed towards Sirte. I find that unlikely - although he'd likely find more support there than anywhere outside of Tripoli, he'd also be pinned against the coast and between the western and eastern rebels.  Escaping into the Med is not a good idea, given the international warrants for his arrest.  If he's smart, and looking to flee, he'll head south.  He still has influential friends in Uganda, Tanzania and the Congo...not necessarily the governments of those countries, who tend towards supporting America, but individuals in their military and intelligence services.  Africa has a virtual industry in keeping disposed dictators hidden for a rainy day, and I've no doubt someone will want that ace in the hand.

[Cain]

LOL.

William Hague just said on the news that Britain would offer the new government advice on policing. 

[Cain]

http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya

France:  33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)

US:  16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)

Denmark:  11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)

Britain:  10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)

Canada:  10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)

Italy:  10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)

Norway:  10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)

The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.

It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.

[Jenne]

But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?

I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers.  But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists.  Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.

Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do.  And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.

Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law".  So, uh, great. 

(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)

I've always and EVER said that Revolutionaries make SHIT governing bodies, just saying.  They do a service by turning over corruption or despotic situations, but then they quickly devolve into strife themselves...or further the despotism just from a different pathway.

[Doktor Howl]

But, uh, couldn't it also, potentially, lead to the Afghan model of "peace and stability"?

I mean, from what I can see, the guys doing the invading of Tripoli are Berbers.  But the guys in the NTC are Libyan Arabs and Islamists.  Islamists who might be, right now, planning a coup against their more secular and moderate allies.

Neither of them alone has the strength or legitimacy to rule the country, and all of them together barely do.  And all of them together is just not going to happen, as far as I can see.

Oh, and we've made it clear now that humanitarian intervention means "NATO countries settling old scores under the guise of international law".  So, uh, great. 

(*special forces and bombing attacks in conjunction with allied local ground forces)

I've always and EVER said that Revolutionaries make SHIT governing bodies, just saying.  They do a service by turning over corruption or despotic situations, but then they quickly devolve into strife themselves...or further the despotism just from a different pathway.

You just made Oliver Cromwell cry. 

[Jenne]

http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya

France:  33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)

US:  16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)

Denmark:  11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)

Britain:  10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)

Canada:  10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)

Italy:  10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)

Norway:  10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)

The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.

It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.

Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?

They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.

[Doktor Howl]

http://www.acus.org/natosource/national-composition-nato-strike-sorties-libya

France:  33%, approximately 2,225 strike sorties (out of 6,745 total sorties by August 4)

US:  16%, 801 strike sorties, (out of 5,005 strike sorties by June 30)

Denmark:  11%, dropped 705 bombs (out of the 7,079 missions by August 11)

Britain:  10%, 700 strike sorties (out of 7,223 total sorties by August 15)

Canada:  10%, approximately 324 strike sorties (based on 3,175 NATO strike sorties by May 25)

Italy:  10% (Not applicable until April 27 when Italy committed 4 Tornados for strike sorties)

Norway:  10%, 596 strike sorties (out of the 6,125 missions by August 1, no longer active)

The most interesting thing about that is, apart from France doing most of the attacks, the UK being outclassed by Denmark and equalled by Italy, Norway and Canda in terms of contribution.

It just shows how much the UK military capacity has been gutted and overextended, when France can clearly out-match it in a near-local theatre.

Because France has held back in the last 10 years while everyone else contributed if not full-throttle at least a *cringe* "decent showing"?

They seem rather...CHOOSY when it comes to international military arms play.

Whereas WE will fuck ANYTHING for $100. 

[Nephew Twiddleton]

:spits on ground and mumbles cromwell: