posted
Major media outlets are big on whiz bang images, and Washington talking heads discussing American concerns, but what about the view from the other side in the Libyan situation- that of Moammar Ghadaffi? There, they seem short on detailed analysis. Here are possible scenarios for Ghadaffi..
1- Scenario 1: Declare victory then quit and retire to Saudi Arabia: In this scenario, Moammar announces a “transitional” gubment, packs up, secures his Swiss accounts and departs for Saudi Arabia, while declaring “victory” because his hand-picked successor is in place. The arab :League can provide cover by claiming to be negotiating a solution. Having provided the West cover, they can burnish their standing by proving cover for an early exit.
2- Scenario 2: Bring Libya down with him by mass attacks against civilians, destruction of all oil facilities and release of oil to pollute the Mediterranean. Under this “beserker” scenario, Moammar decides to burn the house down with him. Mass slaughter demonstrates that the “West,” despite their airpower, is powerless to protect the rebels who they claim to be protecting for “humanitarian” reasons. Of course, “the West” will step up air attacks in response, likely introducing light ground elements and special forces (if it hasn’t already) as in Afghanistan, to coordinate more detailed air strikes. In response, Moammar begins to destroy all oil facilities and like Saddam, makes a mass release of oil into surrounding waters. This is a mad scenario that ruinw Libya for decades, but Moammar, who will be targeted repeatedly with airstrikes (if he hasn’t already been) can, even in the event of his death, create a ruin of fire and smoke, demonstrating that “the West” will have only a ruin to celebrate over.
Senario 3: Keep fighting, adjusting tactics to neutralize Western airpower, and thus create conditions for a long drawn out civil war that will embarrass and exhaust 'the West', allowing a way out on his own terms. Under this scenario, Moammar figures he can still embarrass “the West” – demonstrating that their intervention, rather than create “peace” has actually intensified war. Since said West will spare numerous civilian targets, Moammar’s best bet here is to use “hugging” and human shield tactics as the VC and NVA did in Vietnam. Human shield tactics means of course placing and transporting weapons, munitions and supplies mixed in as much as possible with the civilian population, and in civilian guise, neutralizing airpower by expoliting Western Rules of Engagement.
Hugging tactics means Khadaffi’s forces need to fight as close as possible to the rebels – rather than at a distance -which allows CIA/US Special forces to coordinate airstrikes. The VC/NVA called this “hanging on the belt” – fighting so close to US troops that they were unable to employ their full range of firepower in numerous engagements. Fighting close to the rebels means difficulty distinguishing “friendlies” from “enemies.”
Under scenario 3, Moammar shows up the West as an impotent protector of the rebels, and impotent to cause his resistance to cease, and reduces the value of its airpower. In theory, he can embarrass Barack Obama by making a long lengthy war that will suck in more and more US resources and troops, gambling that such embarrassment will cause Obama to lose the 2010 election.
Questions below - Note these are questions not "endorsement" of any particular argument. Only serious responses please addressing the specifics ..
a) Are any of the scenarios above realistic for a Ghadaffi victory? Why or why not? And do any of them really spell “victory for ordinary Libyans?
(b) Is "humanitarian" intervention really the goal of the West or is their a hidden agenda sch as creating a 'crisis' that allows oil price levels to remain high, or giving the Western dominated UN more power?
(c) Does the Libyan situation set a nice precedent for continued UN power and scope to interfere in the affairs of other nations, manipulated behind the scenes by controllers in "the West"? Under this argument, UN control over any nation can be achieved, via "interventions" for 'humanitarian' purposes. All that is needed is to find willing local collaborators. True, or is this merely hysteria by pajama bloggers? Farakhan argues along similar lines in the link below that there is a hidden agenda. Is he wrong or right? http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2011/03/farrakhan-to-obama-who-hell-do-you.html
(d) Why isn't UN action right, to overthrow Third World dictators? Why not use no-fly zones against other dictators in Africa? Wouldn't that be a plus for long suffering peoples under their regimes? Or no?
(e) Some commentators claim that C and D above are bad precedents for Israel, in that the Arab League can in years to come, cite such precedent, and request intervention against oppressive Jews who refuse to meet Palestinian demands. In this scenario, a UN force would therefore be dispatched to liquidate opposition by the Jewish state. some say this is a good thing, some say bad. What do you think?
(f) What is the “end game” for “the West”? How can the West win against Chadaffi?
(g) Anyone have any other scenarios or thoughts? Any combination of scenarios?
Specific on-topic responses only please..
Posts: 5935 | From: The Hammer | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
Gaddafi, if he is gunning for any of the scenarios you listed, perhaps scenario 2 comes the closest. Senario 3 comes as the next closet, though your assessment about the "vietcong" using "human shields" is off the mark IMO...because the US did not exercise restraint at all in killing civilians. They did the opposite; slaughtered them. I don't foresee Gaddafi settling for becoming an ordinary civilian again. I take him at his word, when he says that he is fighting to the bitter end.
As for a) -- yes, there is a scenario. A drawn-out conflict! The 'western' bunch enforcing a no-fly zone cannot stomach that outcome, because their military is stretched from engagements elsewhere, the rising costs which will have implications on their respective local economies, and continued regional instability and spread of uprisings into the Arabian plate.
b)is a rather naive question; of course, there is a hidden agenda. To put a more "western-Israeli" friendly puppet, put a cap on potential continued rise on oil prices due to the Libyan conflict, and then to use Libya as a staging ground for stamping out the uprisings that are spreading into US vassal states in the Arabian plate.
c)Libya cannot set precedence for such "UN" intervention, since it has been tried and tested a lot of times before current events. Congo, Bosnia, Rwanda, Sudan, Somalia, et al. ring a bell?
(d) Only if UN action can equally be applied to "first world" terrorist states, who violate international law, like the US did when it invaded Iraq. But you know that isn't going to happen.
e)The Arab League doesn't stand a chance to enforce that against Israel. The UN is not a democratic body. The US will veto any action against Israel, as always.
f) We shall see.
-------------------- The Complete Picture of the Past tells Us what Not to Repeat Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Explorer: As for a) -- yes, there is a scenario. A drawn-out conflict! The 'western' bunch enforcing a no-fly zone cannot stomach that outcome, because their military is stretched from engagements elsewhere, the rising costs which will have implications on their respective local economies, and continued regional instability and spread of uprisings into the Arabian plate.
I disagree.
The US is slowly easing out of Japan. The result will be thousands of personnel (both military and support) with nothing to do. They will not collect paychecks for sitting around and doing nothing.
The belief that the western military is stretched thin is not accurate. As long as the economy continues to decline, which it is, people will enlist in order to have a full-time job, with benefits, that they don't have to worry about being laid off from. Not only that, but the government does not hand out uniforms and equipment to its military. Military personnel buy uniforms and most of their equipment from the government. Do not thing, for one minute, that the war machine is not in place for reasons other than "to spread democracy". It's a cash cow.
Posts: 758 | From: Here. There. Everywhere. | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
At this point, Ghaddfi cannot win. To beleieve anything else is but wishful thinking.
He has far too many Turkish elements consolidating their strength against him, and very few Africans who will have his back.
I think Gaddafi would be best to pack up and move his gear to Cuba cause the whole white world has their greedy eyes on that Oil, and without a huge Black African support network, Gaddafi has as much chance as Saddam.
African leaders and their citizens should etch this event in their memories because once these Turks finish with Libya, they'll return their attentions to the rest of Africa.
Posts: 2403 | Registered: Feb 2010
| IP: Logged |
Then why do the US-European need to gang up on a single nation with a limited military budget? Is Libya that much of a military power, that it needs all those countries ganging up on it?
quote: The US is slowly easing out of Japan.
The US will not abandon its long time military base in Japan. It is there for a reason. It is there to keep Japan's imperialistic ambitions at bay, AND...to maintain it as part of a bigger apparatus of military bases to surround China. To think that the US will suddenly abandon Japan as an important military base, is being naive.
quote: The belief that the western military is stretched thin is not accurate.
There is no such thing as "western military". All the so-called "western" nations have their own national interests that they seek to defend, which can and do conflict with one another. And yes, they have large military resources already dedicated to drawn-out conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan. Maybe not so much for the other countries, but the U.S. military is definitely stretched out, and American leaders even openly admit to this. The occupations of Iraq and Afghanistan are the most public involvements of US military, but there are a lot more that are kept under wraps, like those in Somalia, Indonesia, Yemen, Mexico, Southern America, etc.
quote: As long as the economy continues to decline, which it is, people will enlist in order to have a full-time job, with benefits, that they don't have to worry about being laid off from.
Military enlistment is actually on the decline in the U.S., the last time I checked. Furthermore, the decline in US-European economies actually has another effect: Governments are coming up with strong austerity programs which are vehemently opposed by the public. These programs are radicalizing the public and getting them involved in uprisings. Few people have time to enlist rather than to preoccupy themselves with forcing their governments to drop austerity programs and put in reforms that improve their standards of living. That is what's happening in north African countries and those in the Arabian plate. They are not preoccupied with getting enlisted in the military; rather, they are uprising before their governments.
quote:
Do not thing, for one minute, that the war machine is not in place for reasons other than "to spread democracy". It's a cash cow.
What do you think the "spread of democrary" is all about? Advantage over international economies and overseas natural resources. Other than that, the only other reason would be to intimidate local populations from uprising.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
At this point, Ghaddfi cannot win. To beleieve anything else is but wishful thinking.
He has far too many Turkish elements consolidating their strength against him, and very few Africans who will have his back.
I do think Gaddafi can stick it out, through a prolonged stalemate, which is looking to be very real at this point.
Gaddafi has had experience of "western" sanctions before, and he had survived them. He's had many assassination attempts on his life by these same actors before, and he had survived those as well. If the "westerners" who are attacking him now, find that this is a war not worth fighting in the long run, they will eventually make amends with him again, if he offers them sweet deals, just as he had done just prior to the invasion of Iraq. You don't think that the Libyan guy said to be the perpetrator of the bringing down of the Pan'am airliner was released by the British authorities for nothing, do you? If Gaddafi manages to stick it out, he will have willing economic partners not only in Africa, but also South America, China and Russia. Against this backdrop, economic sanctions will have little effect.
Posts: 7516 | From: Somewhere on Earth | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged |
UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!
Printer-friendly view of this topic