We seem to be involved in firing missiles at Libya

[ChickensHaveNoEyebrows]

Bloody hell.

LadyFanny, I know the region very very well and am really not into conspiracy theories.
I think that is a an important perspective you linked. It really hits home.

I somehow can't help thinking that this was an "engineered" insurrection.

Americans NEVER go into/back armed conflict unless its part of a "doctrine". their pro-democracy interventions (ie:latin america) are well documented. I use Latin America as an example because I do want to emphasize that I am only commenting on prosaic reasons for the "intervention". I would very much like to take out the "islam" boogeyman out of the equation for a second because its just a screen of smoke (will come back to that later because it is not just that).

Lybia is just geo-strategically very interesting as a confluence between arab/muslim and PanAfricanism.
Ghaddafi wields enormous respect from equally mad African/sub saharan leaders and this might very well explain why China emitted reservations for the form(rather than the ludicrous assumption that they might fear a contagion of the jasmine revolution) but nonetheless went ahead with it.

We all know Africa is the new frontier with China now being the main player, very cunningly re-shapping africa.
see [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/zimbabwe/8315107/China-in-Africa-at-a-glance.html here]
and
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/06/chinas-economic-invasion-of-africa here]

I am convinced they are sniggering and waiting to pick up the pieces. (surely they must have a soft spot for him and his little green book)
Maybe this sounds far fetched, but seen from here (china) and as a native from North Africa, it does look like Joseph Conrad's heart of darkness revisited.

The members of the security council are basically in 2 camps, old money (old imperialists ) and new money (brazil/india/china) and I think we should take that into the equation. The new world order is being redefined and in the big scheme of things, something to ponder on IMHO.

Now if we want to re-introduce the "islamic" dimension, I have no reservations.
Again, for who ever is willing to keep a clear head and understand how "jihadists" suddenly erupted out of nowhere at the end of the 20th century within one one the major monotheist movements, lets talk figures.

Who controls arms/drugs/people smuggling?

"I can see that it started in a different way, and that it was because the start point was different."

The start point was similar in that Iraq had SAM sites in the southern no fly zone and we knew about them, yet we did not pro actively attack them. Yes a lot was lost in the Gulf War but there was still an air defence infrastructure, of sorts, there that we did nothing about.

"most military runways were cratered, hardened shelters were destroyed and the Iraqis were left unable to prevent air dominance by the coalition"

But either some survived or they were fixed up pretty quickly, and as with the SAM sites we must have been aware of that. And the first challenge to the Southern no fly zone were Iraqi aircraft that were darting in and out of it. We managed to trap one aircraft and shot it down, the rest were out of the no fly zone and were not shot down. Furthermore the airbase from which the planes had been launched was not attacked.

So the west was aware of multiple actual threats to the no fly zone (SAMs, airbases and aircraft) and yet did nothing to pro actively destroy them.

The lesson you could easily take from that is that a western no fly zone will be reactive and despite your air defences being known about if you don't interfere they won't be attacked.

"I've been googling the Bosnia no-fly zone. The circumstances on the ground were different as the zone was initially over Bosnia only"

Fair point.

"it seems the remaining air defences there were not posing a threat"

The posed some threat and SAM sites were destroyed if they had locked onto NATO aircraft. Whether they were isolated examples and we ignored other known SAM sites, as happened in Iraq, I really couldn't say. However one example is a bit telling. A SAM site launched missiles on NATO aircraft. Rather than just respond with an air strike the site was checked out by multiple reconnaissance flights and only after an assessment that it was still a threat was it attacked. Hardly the instant hammer that has been applied to Libya.

LadyFanny - thank you for the link. Very detailed and informative so will take me a while to read it all.

One thing particularly jumped off the page at me ie
that

US, Britain and France set up military bases in Libya at the end of Feb !!

I noticed that too siobhan and could not believe my eyes Could this really be what some are saying?

The tempo of operations seems to have changed. Today Jane's are reporting that the allied air operations have been to neutralise Libya's fixed integrated air defence system (IADS).

So even though we seemed doomed to disagree about the importance of the remnants of Iraq's air defence systems post-Desert Storm, it seems that the bombing so far has achieved destruction in line with what was knocked out from Iraq during the war, pre-no-fly. I haven't seen anything authoritative discussing Libya's SAMs.

(Can't link full article, it's behind a pay wall)

"So even though we seemed doomed to disagree about the importance of the remnants of Iraq's air defence systems post-Desert Storm"

To me it's just a case of following a few questions in terms of how things were during the start of both the Iraqi and Libyan no fly zones.

1. Were there missile sites on the ground and were the allied forces aware of them?
   Iraq: Yes
   Libya: Yes

2. Were there airbases capable of launching aircraft to counter the no fly zone and were the allied forces aware of them?
   Iraq: Yes
   Libya: Yes

3. Were the missile sites pro actively destroyed?
   Iraq: No
   Libya: Yes

4. Were the airbases pro actively disabled?
   Iraq: No
   Libya: Yes

And so I can see a difference between what happened in Libya and Iraq, and so I think that it's reasonable for other nations to do so and to ask questions.

However I'm not suggesting that the UN mandate has been broken.

We could argue into the ground about IADS and runways (destroyed in Desert Storm, and Ellamy) and SAMs (degraded, not totally eliminated, though details in Libya not yet released).

I can however see why the Arab League would use a disingenuous position for this, and reiterating it may help keep them politically on side.

"I can however see why the Arab League would use a disingenuous position for this, and reiterating it may help keep them politically on side."

I agree that it probably is political rhetoric for the masses but I disagree in that their questions are not disingenuous.

No matter how degraded they may have been when compared to the pre-Desert Storm days the Iraqis had operational SAM sites and airbases by the time of the no fly zones that the allied nations were fully aware of. And facts of the matter are that the no fly zone did not begin with strikes against those assets.

So it is a perfectly logical question to ask why Libya is different and to say that this is not what you expected.

To me the military's answers are both sensible and within the limits of the UN mandate, but the facts remain that Iraq was handled in a different fashion. Iraq was reactive and handled in a remarkably cautious manner where as Libya has been proactive and bold.

Iraqi military assets were struck when they did something.

Libyan military assets were struck in case they did something.

Precisely, badger.

And the answer is that Libya (probably, no announcements yet) still has SAM sites which will be struck on the same basis. I doubt that its IADS and airbases have yet received the amount of damage that Iraq did in Desert Storm, but the change in tempo of the air ops that has been reported today suggests that the coalition is happy to let this rest after only 3 days, not 10.

'One thing particularly jumped off the page at me ie
that

US, Britain and France set up military bases in Libya at the end of Feb !'

Now children - why would Gaddafi let them do that? He wouldn't, and it is very hard to support a base in a foreign country which it would be difficult to supply and protect.

Some people will believe anything.

If you remember, we sent warships to get UK nationals out of Libya, which is a bit different to setting up a military base.

Ignoring gratuitous rudeness.

Read the link. See if you recognise the article. Then comment.

I read the link, I asked my pet military adviser who laughed, and then posted.

Be realistic; it is very hard to support a military base in a foreign country - look at Bastion in Afghanistan.

As for the link - interesting that there was no independent site I could find on either the journalist or the organisation sponsoring the website...that always smacks of bias and vested interests to me.

Oh, and it wasn't gratuitous rudeness....it was sarcasm. Rudeness is different.

The mention of "bases" in the article appears to be an error. If you follow the link within the article, it takes you the Iranian PressTV site which says: "have dispatched hundreds of military advisors to Libya to set up military bases in the country's oil-rich east, reports say.". It does not specify what reports say this.

Given the date of the report, may be accurate to the extent that that was when UK (and I'm sure other nationality) troops were in Libya, and this was reported in the press here (evacuation ops). But the idea of bases seems wrong, and does not appear to have been reported other than in Iran.

The main article has some curious omissions - notably (from a UK point of view) Lockerbie and the murder of Yvonne Fletcher: both important reasons for international isolation. I was also curious on CW: it seemed to be suggesting that Libya did not have CW and only admitted to it to avoid an Iraq-type fate: this is hard to square with the UN's account of its destruction.

Back to school scaryteacher!! - sarcasm is using words which mean the opposite of what is said. Many of my family are in the USAF so I'm well acquainted with several well established US airbases in the UK & USA.

This was also reported in that well known Iranian publication The Guardian on 4 March as part of the evacuation plans. And no I don't imagine that another Camp Bastion has been built in the Libyan desert!

My (serving at a major HQ in Brussels) military adviser laughed, as I said. I am well acquainted with RAF, Army and RN bases in the UK and some bases in the US, and your point is?

Sarcasm can also be a tone of voice, as per the Collins English dictionary: sarcasm is mocking, contemptuous or ironic language intended to convey scorn or insult, and the use or tone of such language.

If you read Iranian news agency reports and unsupported stuff on the net do you really think you are getting accuracy? Since when does anyone believe what the Iranians say?

I said look at Bastion as an example of how hard it is to support and supply a base in a hostile foreign environment. It gave my db grey hairs doing that last year. We can use the UK Sovereign military bases in Cyprus and we have a dockyard in Gib up the other end of the Med, so don't need to put people in danger by having a base in Libya.

siobahnagain: I've been looking at the Guardian for 4 March and I can find nothing about military bases (which you mentioned in your post Mon 21-Mar-11 13:49:32).

As I said in my previous post, the presence of the military icw evacuation ops were well reported in the press here (I meant UK).

The strongest statement I could find in The Guardian was: "Britain is preparing to send advisers to help anti-Gaddafi forces in eastern Libya, as Nato commanders drew up plans for a wide range of military options, including a no-fly zone". Nothing at all about establishing a military base, but it was about the time that there was (again widely reported) a small special forces / diplomatic team on a short visit.

You mention your US military connexions, so presumably have non-public information not available to the rest of us, and I can quite see why you have to be careful in posting. Senior US officials seem to be saying quite different things, though. I suppose it'll all become clear over time.

The ususal "advisers" maybe? as in marines/SAS ? the kind that go undercover and are deployed around gas/oil installations just in case? not something that would be advertised but extremely likely to have taken place.