We seem to be involved in firing missiles at Libya

[ChickensHaveNoEyebrows]

Bloody hell.

"BadgersPaw - on a point of detail, the no-fly zone over Iraq didn't begin with specific action to knock out the air defence system, because it was not necessary. It had been destroyed in the Gulf War. Nothing left to flatten."

That is a fair point.

However there was still some air defence equipment on the ground and Iraqi planes in air bases and the point is that when the no fly zones first came in we didn't immediately seek those out and destroy them. Instead we reacted to individual planes and radar locks as and when they happened.

"have now decided to criticise the bombing and say they never wanted it"

It is very arguable that they were expecting a no fly zone along the lines of the first ones in Iraq. As said above those were reactive no fly zones where we only attacked and shot done that which either flew or attempted to attack "us". We didn't start those no fly zones with an immediate and heavy attack.

However as someone else has pointed out the Iraq air defence system wasn't in the best of states after the Gulf War, but it did however still exist and was functional.

I can't remember how much fixed infrastructure was left. Wasn't the biggest remaining threat from MANPADs?

Presumably, Libya has them too.

As much as I think that Gadaffi is an utter lunatic. I can't see how we can possibly "win" here.

What's our objective? To stop the bloodshed? How long for? All that will happen is that Gadaffi will be afforded the time to regroup, rearm and wait until we no longer have the political will anymore. Then he'll be stronger and be able to crush the rebels easier.

We can't put boots on the ground so we can hold nothing. We can bomb the crap out of his air defences and any tanks attacking but ultimately it needs a guy stood there with a gun to hold the ground.

It's another utter mess in the making. The arab league will soon drop their support once a few bombs kill some civilian's. The arab countries should be doing this, not another western intervention in a 3rd muslim country!

The Arab League have a point. They backed a no fly zone. Not regiem change. In fact regime change by deposing a depot does rather expose the rulers od states within the Arab League as most of them are in fact despotic dictators or absolute rulers themselves.

NiceGuy2 - very good points and indeed echoed by a former diplomat today on Sky.

I think the Arab League is being disingenuous if they are really trying to claim they did not know it is necessary to disable air defence systems as a necessary pre-cursor to a no-fly zone.

Agree completely that "we can't put boots on the ground so we can hold nothing" (oft voiced about the Infantry!).

Did anyone else see GO on Andrew Marr this morning? Interesting that he would only say there would be no occupying force (strictly in line with wording of resolution). There are other types of land-based operation.

Agree, Nice Guy. There aren't going to be any winners here.

I have an indepth analysis for you all = you can have it for free. it's better than the briefings from mi6 and I didn't get caught out flying in by helicopter to research it either
He's a nutter. He's close to Europe. He's financed terrorist ops in the past that have targetted US and European citizens. We've been quite happy to cosy up to him for years now and forget all about that but kind of blew our cover by rushing to declare him person non grata after the Libyans decided they'd had enough of him. As he is a nutter (see earlier) he's not going to forget that in a hurry so he can't really be allowed to stay in power cos first thing he'll do after killing all the opposition is start financing terrorist ops again. All that oil brings in a fair bit of money, after all
We hoped the Libyans would do it for us but sadly it turns out that having no weaponry newer than the 80s is a disadvantage - so we have to try and shorten the odds of him winning and encourage a bit of rebellion in the troops closer to home so a tidy little assassination might take care of the rest

"I can't remember how much fixed infrastructure was left. Wasn't the biggest remaining threat from MANPADs? "

MANPAD's aren't much of a threat to jets that comfortable fly many times higher than the maximum altitude of such systems. The primary threats that both the Northern and Southern no fly zones encountered in Iraq were heavier SAMs and, to begin with, aircraft. MANPADS would have posed no real threat to aircraft enforcing the no fly zones.

"I think the Arab League is being disingenuous if they are really trying to claim they did not know it is necessary to disable air defence systems as a necessary pre-cursor to a no-fly zone. "

But that's the point, it's not necessary, as Iraq demonstrates.

Personally I have no problem with what's happening, can understand why it makes the pilots safer and believe that it's within the remit of the UN resolutions.

But the previous Iraqi no fly zones demonstrate perhaps what that Arab League might claim it was expecting. Patrols and then retaliation for any attempt to either launch aircraft or attach the patrols. We have not begun these no fly zones as we've begun them before.

Off the top of my head I also think that that's how the zone over Bosnia operated.

And that's actually what I thought was happening when it all started yesterday. French aircraft were seemingly patrolling over Libya as the very first thing to happen. Then in the evening there was a change and there were massive strikes using missiles and heavy bombers.

We'll have to disagree: the Iraq no-fly zone began after the Gulf war.

the Gulf War began with the aerial bombardment of Iraq (mid January 1991) and it lasted 6 weeks. The destruction of Iraq's air force and air defence systems as its first priority, and only went on to other military, communication and infrastructure targets thereafter.

By the time the no-fly zone came in, there was really nothing left.

Heavier SAMs are still mobile - some were concealed and later used opportunistically.

The idea of a no fly zone relies upon the fact that air defences are taken out. I can't see how the Arab league would not understand that.

As for Gadaffi being a nutter close to Europe. Well he's been like that for nearly forty years. He's no threat to us.

My objection is simply that we've intervened in yet another arab country with no clear objectives laid out. Do we learn nothing?

Next MN post....why do muslim's hate us?

"By the time the no-fly zone came in, there was really nothing left."

But there quite clearly was, both missiles and aircraft opposed the Iraqi no fly zones. And there was, at least in the early years, no concerted effort to proactively hunt down and destroy those things but instead they were reacted to when they "threatened" the aircraft enforcing the no fly zones.

And, as said, the operation over Bosnia was similar. It did not begin with the annihilation of the Serbian air defences but instead threats were reacted to.

Personally such reactive operations are to me far too risky, they rely basically on putting up some bait and then hitting anything that dares challenge it. I can understand why the military would rather be proactive.

But it remains as a fact that previous no fly zones began their life as reactive and the Arab League could well have genuinely believed that that is what would happen with this one.

It's also more than possible that this is just political gesturing by the Arab League and they knew exactly what was going to happen.

Why do Muslims hate us? They don't! Who is 'us', Nice Guy?

It's only the extremists who hate anybody. I suppose they are just fanatics, in the same way as the US Christian fundamentalists. There's no logic in blind prejudice.

The power of a fixed idea ...

"But it remains as a fact that previous no fly zones began their life as reactive and the Arab League could well have genuinely believed that that is what would happen with this one."

It's worth a quick look at the history of the Southern no fly zone in Iraq.

www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/southern_watch-1992.htm

It began in August 1992.

Nothing seems to happen until December 1992 when the Iraqi's try to fly a plane over it and it's shot down.

In January 1993 the US and UK tell Iraq to remove it's missile sites from Southern Iraq, we know where they are but haven't attacked them.

Later in January a punitive strike is made against some, but not all, of the missile sites more in reaction to other aggression by Iraq than to do with the enforcement of the no fly zone. And then after that any other SAM sites that lock onto a western aircraft are dealt with.

So the SAM sites were there and were known about. Some, not all, were attacked following their non-removal and other events. Other sites were then only attacked when they interfered with allied aircraft.

The sites were not just attacked at the commencement of the no fly zone, which is what is happening in Libya.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that what is happening in Libya is wrong but I am saying it is unusual and perhaps what some did not expect to happen based upon past events. It might also have caught Gadaffi by surprise who could well have though he could get away with a lot more than he has as long as he didn't target western aircraft or fly anything.

There is no way they didn't know it would involve disabling their air capabilities. I do agree though that ultimately we should probably have kept out as we are becoming hated around the world and tbh we have enough economic shit going on here to get involved in another conflict with no obvious endgame

I agree that some Iraqi mobile assets were concealed and later used opportunistically. The infrastructure and communications had already been destroyed.

I don't know about the origins of the one over FY, though the ground was held by different factions so infrastructure/communications must have been fractured. NATO did use air strikes against military targets though, didn't it?

Agree completely about the likelihood of this being political gesturing by Arab League states - they have various audiences to satisfy at present.

"There is no way they didn't know it would involve disabling their air capabilities."

Why?

Iraq had, for example, missiles on the ground in the Southern no fly zone and they weren't attacked until after other aggression from Iraq, and even then only some of them were. After that they were attacked as and when they threatened western aircraft.

Serbia itself wasn't attacked at all during the no fly operation over Bosnia.

But I guess the big clue for this was that the UN mandate doesn't just specify a no fly zone.

"I agree that some Iraqi mobile assets were concealed and later used opportunistically"

They weren't concealed very well. We knew where they were, we later destroyed some of them as a "punishment" for things other than the no fly zone and we later blew up any that ever tracked us.

The issue is that the SAM sites were there and we knew that they were there but we, as a rule, didn't attack them until they tried to do something. Likewise we knew where the airbases were but I don't believe we ever hit them, we just attacked any planes from them that flew into the no fly zone.

In Libya we seem not to be waiting but are pre-emptively attacking the missile sites and their airbases. That's sensible, within the limits of the UN mandate and I'm not questioning it other than to say this is different from what we've seen before.

Perhaps the constant talk of just a "no fly zone" was part of a plan to hide exactly what was coming.

"NATO did use air strikes against military targets though, didn't it?"

Eventually it did, but when it was "just" a no fly zone it was just a reactive thing.

What about the Russian jets which 'test' UK (Scottish) airspace weekly? Is the govt ditching the fighter jets which go to see them off each time??
Also hope that Argentina doesn't decide to invade the Falklands (who want to stay British) now we're tied up in afghan, libya etc.
Bet the zimbabweans aren't thrilled either that we've let them get starved / killed / raped etc by Mugabe's forces - considering it's an ex-colony + the white people there mostly have British ancestors. Yet with our limited resources we get involved in countries which never had anything to do with us!
BTW i know a Russian guy who fought the Afghan Mujahadeen (who the West supported) in the 80s - he was a KGB communist - he lost his job + left Russia when the USSR broke up. So he got a job - in the UK! Recently he met some ex-Afghan Mujahadeen fighters in a coffee shop in town (they were of course kicked out by the Taliban). Strange world!!

In the first 10 days of Desert Storm, the coalition flew more than 10,000 sorties and destroyed or crippled Iraq's nuclear, biological and chemical weapons development programs, its air defences, its offensive air and ballistic missile capability, and its internal state control mechanisms.

There really wasn't much left, though some remnants survived in the north (outside the initial no-fly zone).

An ex-marine i know who served in Northern Ireland and 1st gulf war said to me that the one thing to be guaranteed about war is that we will never know the truth.
Lots of stuff happened then, just as now, that the public will never know about.

of course he was/now will be a threat to the UK.Europe/US
he has been much better behaved more recently but there is quite a long list of terrorist outrages sponsored by libya you know - lockerbie being just one amongst many - just google 'libya terrorism' and have a read
we've recently decided he is a person who can be tolerated and now we've changed our mind again - so the question is 'will he forgive and forget' or 'will he get mad and get even'
I'm guessing the latter - and so are a lot of other people by the looks of it

Don't believe the false reporting by mainstream media. This invasion has nothing to do with liberating the people; it's about power, oil and ofcourse let's not forget Uranium.

"There really wasn't much left"

But again the facts show that there was.

Picking just the example of the Southern no fly zone, there were SAM sites there that we obviously new about as we requested that they be removed. And when they weren't removed we targeted some, but not all, of them and the rest were then allowed to be taken away to the north.

So there was an air defence infrastructure that we knew about and yet didn't destroy until other Iraqi activity caused the west to launch a punitive strike against them. And even then we didn't set out to destroy all that we knew about.

And as to airbases I don't think that as a part of the no-fly zones in Iraq that we ever attacked an Iraqi air base. When they launched aircraft we shot them down but that was it.

So what lesson is Gadaffi to take from that?

1. SAM sites will not be attacked despite the west being fully aware where they are unless they lock onto western aircraft.

2. Airbases will never be attacked despite the west again knowing where they are and that they are operational but the planes that they launch will be shot down.

Can you really not see why the Libya operation has started in a different way?

I can see that it started in a different way, and that it was because the start point was different. The Iraqi air defence systems were destroyed already, most military runways were cratered, hardened shelters were destroyed and the Iraqis were left unable to prevent air dominance by the coalition. The same task was required for both, but the implementation looks a bit different because of the differing circumstances on the ground.

I've been googling the Bosnia no-fly zone. The circumstances on the ground were different as the zone was initially over Bosnia only, and it seems the remaining air defences there were not posing a threat. Serb air defences were not attacked as Serbia was not included in the no-fly zone, but Serb aircraft which encroached into Bosnian airspace were attacked. Or have I missed important information on this one?