From Homeland Security NewsWire:
Libya update
Coalition faces unappealing choices in Libya
Published 31 March 2011
The Obama foreign policy and national security team has concluded that the poorly equipped opposition is probably incapable of prevailing without decisive Western intervention -- either an all-out U.S.-led military assault on regime forces or a decision to arm the rebels; even though an invasion of Libya will be smaller in scope than the invasion of Iraq, the United States and the Europeans have no stomach for it, and the coalition's Muslim members will not support it; a decision fully to coordinate Western air power with rebel ground movements would place Washington openly on the side of the rebels, whose goals and makeup are murky and whose chances of winning -- even with more air support -- are questionable
The battle rages, outcome uncertain // Source: cleveland.com
The supporters of the U.S.-led military intervention in Libya were divided into three camps:
•The optimists hoped that the destruction of Gaddafi’s air force and the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya would not only level the playing field between the regime and the rebels, but would also humiliate Gaddafi, cause major defection of former loyalists in the military and security services ranks, and drive Libya to a critical point reached in Tunisia and Egypt earlier — a point at which the regime staying in power was no longer a viable option.
•The realists said that the domination of the air above Libya by the coalition forces would not be enough to weaken Gaddafi to a point where he would consider abdication, but would be enough to discourage him from continuing attacks on the rebels. The result would a long-drawn stalemate, accompanied by behind-the-scenes negotiations to ease Gaddafi out of power and out of Libya.
•The pessimists had more modest goals: prevent Gaddafi from engaging in a wholesale massacre of the rebels, but not much more. The pessimists understood that the rebels were just not strong enough. The disparate anti-Gaddafi groups are divided along tribal and religious lines — indeed, they are united only by their opposition to Gaddafi. The rebels are also disorganized, untrained, and without an accepted leadership. They also have weapons to match the Libyan military and pro-Gaddafi militias.
It now appears that the pessimists were right. After initial setbacks as a result of the coalition attacks on his air force, Gaddafi and his military leaders have found a way to operate effectively against the rebels without air cover, while the rebels proved unable to mount any meaningful military campaign against the regime.
Fox News reports that, as a result, Obama’s foreign policy and national security team has concluded that the poorly equipped opposition is probably incapable of prevailing without decisive Western intervention — either an all-out U.S.-led military assault on regime forces or a decision to arm the rebels.
A senior U.S. intelligence official told Fox News that Qaddafi is reaching deeper into his military ranks to send reinforcements onto the battlefield, has adopted new, unconventional tactics to counter the effects of coalition air strikes, and apparently is convinced he can retain power by gradually retaking a degree of control of eastern Libya.
In addition to grounding the Libyan air force, the Western military intervention, which began on 19 march, has inflicted major losses on Gaddafi’s military. Qaddafi’s land forces, though, still outmatch the opposition by a wide margin and are not close to being forced to stop threatening the civilian resistance.
According to Fox News, Gaddafi has adopted in two ways to the new military realities:
•He changed his battlefield tactics. Having seen much of their armor pounded by Western air strikes earlier, Qaddafi commanders left many tanks and other armor in hiding places in Sirte and advanced eastward instead with small convoys of sedans, minivans, SUVs and other civilian vehicles that the official called “battle wagons” armed with small rockets and other weaponry. This made it harder for Western pilots to distinguish the Qaddafi troops as military formations and lightened the logistics load for the Qaddafi forces.
•Qaddafi in recent days also has mobilized second-tier ground forces that U.S. officials believe are less capable and less trusted by Qaddafi, the official said. This appears to reflect the Libyan leader’s determination to press his advantage while the Western powers are self-limited in their assistance to the rebels.
The United States and its allies now have three choices :
•Stay the course. The can continue with the current policy, but based on the evidence so far, this approach favors Gaddafi. His military has proved capable of adapting to new realities, while the rebels are still weak and disorganized.
•Invade Libya. The coalition may send ground troops in to engage the Libyan military and force Gaddafi out of power. Even though this operation will be smaller than the invasion of Iraq, the United States and the Europeans have no stomach for it, and the coalition’s Muslim members will not support it.
•Arm and train the rebels, and then closely provide close air support when they launch their attacks on the Libyan military. As Fox news notes, though, “a decision to fully coordinate Western air power with rebel ground movements would place Washington openly on the side of the rebels, whose goals and makeup are murky and whose chances of winning — even with more air support — are questionable.”
The coalition is thus facing tough choices in the days ahead, with no appealing strategy available.
Libya update
Coalition faces unappealing choices in Libya
Published 31 March 2011
The Obama foreign policy and national security team has concluded that the poorly equipped opposition is probably incapable of prevailing without decisive Western intervention -- either an all-out U.S.-led military assault on regime forces or a decision to arm the rebels; even though an invasion of Libya will be smaller in scope than the invasion of Iraq, the United States and the Europeans have no stomach for it, and the coalition's Muslim members will not support it; a decision fully to coordinate Western air power with rebel ground movements would place Washington openly on the side of the rebels, whose goals and makeup are murky and whose chances of winning -- even with more air support -- are questionable
The battle rages, outcome uncertain // Source: cleveland.com
The supporters of the U.S.-led military intervention in Libya were divided into three camps:
•The optimists hoped that the destruction of Gaddafi’s air force and the imposition of a no-fly zone over Libya would not only level the playing field between the regime and the rebels, but would also humiliate Gaddafi, cause major defection of former loyalists in the military and security services ranks, and drive Libya to a critical point reached in Tunisia and Egypt earlier — a point at which the regime staying in power was no longer a viable option.
•The realists said that the domination of the air above Libya by the coalition forces would not be enough to weaken Gaddafi to a point where he would consider abdication, but would be enough to discourage him from continuing attacks on the rebels. The result would a long-drawn stalemate, accompanied by behind-the-scenes negotiations to ease Gaddafi out of power and out of Libya.
•The pessimists had more modest goals: prevent Gaddafi from engaging in a wholesale massacre of the rebels, but not much more. The pessimists understood that the rebels were just not strong enough. The disparate anti-Gaddafi groups are divided along tribal and religious lines — indeed, they are united only by their opposition to Gaddafi. The rebels are also disorganized, untrained, and without an accepted leadership. They also have weapons to match the Libyan military and pro-Gaddafi militias.
It now appears that the pessimists were right. After initial setbacks as a result of the coalition attacks on his air force, Gaddafi and his military leaders have found a way to operate effectively against the rebels without air cover, while the rebels proved unable to mount any meaningful military campaign against the regime.
Fox News reports that, as a result, Obama’s foreign policy and national security team has concluded that the poorly equipped opposition is probably incapable of prevailing without decisive Western intervention — either an all-out U.S.-led military assault on regime forces or a decision to arm the rebels.
A senior U.S. intelligence official told Fox News that Qaddafi is reaching deeper into his military ranks to send reinforcements onto the battlefield, has adopted new, unconventional tactics to counter the effects of coalition air strikes, and apparently is convinced he can retain power by gradually retaking a degree of control of eastern Libya.
In addition to grounding the Libyan air force, the Western military intervention, which began on 19 march, has inflicted major losses on Gaddafi’s military. Qaddafi’s land forces, though, still outmatch the opposition by a wide margin and are not close to being forced to stop threatening the civilian resistance.
According to Fox News, Gaddafi has adopted in two ways to the new military realities:
•He changed his battlefield tactics. Having seen much of their armor pounded by Western air strikes earlier, Qaddafi commanders left many tanks and other armor in hiding places in Sirte and advanced eastward instead with small convoys of sedans, minivans, SUVs and other civilian vehicles that the official called “battle wagons” armed with small rockets and other weaponry. This made it harder for Western pilots to distinguish the Qaddafi troops as military formations and lightened the logistics load for the Qaddafi forces.
•Qaddafi in recent days also has mobilized second-tier ground forces that U.S. officials believe are less capable and less trusted by Qaddafi, the official said. This appears to reflect the Libyan leader’s determination to press his advantage while the Western powers are self-limited in their assistance to the rebels.
The United States and its allies now have three choices :
•Stay the course. The can continue with the current policy, but based on the evidence so far, this approach favors Gaddafi. His military has proved capable of adapting to new realities, while the rebels are still weak and disorganized.
•Invade Libya. The coalition may send ground troops in to engage the Libyan military and force Gaddafi out of power. Even though this operation will be smaller than the invasion of Iraq, the United States and the Europeans have no stomach for it, and the coalition’s Muslim members will not support it.
•Arm and train the rebels, and then closely provide close air support when they launch their attacks on the Libyan military. As Fox news notes, though, “a decision to fully coordinate Western air power with rebel ground movements would place Washington openly on the side of the rebels, whose goals and makeup are murky and whose chances of winning — even with more air support — are questionable.”
The coalition is thus facing tough choices in the days ahead, with no appealing strategy available.
No comments:
Post a Comment