Libya

[Filo]

Would n`t it be handy if we had an aircraft carrier?

[Dutch Uncle]

In general yes

In this case no

Enough land bases and Harriers not the best aircraft for what is required

[Filo]

Well. Gadaffi has shite himself again after mouthing off and announced a ceasefire!

On the aircraft carrier, it would have been handy to have the Harriers in the Med off the coast of Libya, it provides a rapid response and gives longer patrol times for the aircraft without the need to re fuel, as it is, the typhoon eurofighter would have to be located in Cyprus, over 1000 miles away from Libya, granted the Harrier would not be as effective as the eurofighter or the tornadoes.

[Dutch Uncle]

I'll come clean Filo - having lived for 35 years in Germany and Holland I am taking a wider multi-national view. With all the legal basis now approved by the UN I would hope NATO would become involved, and would somehow speed up its decision making process. If I was chairing a NATO Force Generation Conference I would not necessarily be looking for UK carriers - if US ones are currently anywhere near they would be my first choice, and I would also look at French ones.

But I agree that scrapping the Ark Royal weakens the independence and global role of the UK, and makes us reliant on allies in more scenarios than before.  

However the scrapping NIMROD AEW I see as less of a mistake since I have real doubts as to its long term effectiveness - we should have gone for our own Boeing E3A from the very start.

[Filo]

I think I heard on a news programme that a US carrier was in the Med or en route, it`s all well and good being big mates with the yanks, but what would have happened in the Falklands when the Yanks did n`t help us had we not had any Carrier capability then. the decision to scrap Ark Royal was scandalous!

[Dutch Uncle]

Totally agreed Filo. That's just what I meant about being reliant on allies in more scenarios - i.e. long distance scenarios where we either need some local friend to base our aircraft, or now some other global friend (only one candidate) to support us with carriers.

[Filo]

As for Libya, I think the UN resolution wording is spot on, under no circumstances should an occupation force be deployed, the Libyan people have to sort this out for themselves, as it is now the UN resolution is defunct if Gadaffi sticks to his ceasefire, he`s a bit of an expert at pushing things to the brink before backing off, a very dangerous leader to have in the Middle East right now.

[Dutch Uncle]

Totally right Filo - and actually not unexpected IMHO

[Mike_F]

In the wider context any action that we are involved with in Libya could be of great benefit in terms of future middle-east relations and national security.

We have angered much of the arab world with our invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan which has given Al-Qaeda plenty of fuel for its recruitment and radicalisation machine. By coming to the aid of the Arab League in their hour of need and commiting to help them deal with a rogue state in the area we can go some way towards reparing the damage done to our reputation in the muslim world and narrow the gap between \"us\" and \"them\". If Gaddafi is as good as his word and maintains the ceasefire or, even better steps down then we will have won ourselves some friends in the region on the strength of a promise without a single pilot taking to the skies.

[BillyStubbsTears]

I'll come clean Filo - having lived for 35 years in Germany and Holland I am taking a wider multi-national view. With all the legal basis now approved by the UN I would hope NATO would become involved, and would somehow speed up its decision making process. If I was chairing a NATO Force Generation Conference I would not necessarily be looking for UK carriers - if US ones are currently anywhere near they would be my first choice, and I would also look at French ones.

But I agree that scrapping the Ark Royal weakens the independence and global role of the UK, and makes us reliant on allies in more scenarios than before.  

However the scrapping NIMROD AEW I see as less of a mistake since I have real doubts as to its long term effectiveness - we should have gone for our own Boeing E3A from the very start.

Can't see this being a NATO-led operation Dutch. Germany and Turkey are both dead-set against it (although Germany only abstained at the UN last night rather than vote against it). NATO could hardly be officially involved with two key states opposing the action. More likely to be a \"coalition of the willing\" again I'd have thought.

I can well understand Turkey being against the action, but it's difficult to understand why Germany is against it. Mind, they do have previous. It was Germany's rush to recognise Croatia and Slovenia's independence in the early 90s that accelerated the Balkans War, and then they were one of the least willing nations to get involved in pulling the warring sides apart. They have a heavy satain on their conscience over that one.

[Filo]

The Germans are being typically German, looking after their own interests

http://af.reuters.com/article/topNews/idAFJOE72E0FV20110315?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews

[Dutch Uncle]

I'll come clean Filo - having lived for 35 years in Germany and Holland I am taking a wider multi-national view. With all the legal basis now approved by the UN I would hope NATO would become involved, and would somehow speed up its decision making process. If I was chairing a NATO Force Generation Conference I would not necessarily be looking for UK carriers - if US ones are currently anywhere near they would be my first choice, and I would also look at French ones.

But I agree that scrapping the Ark Royal weakens the independence and global role of the UK, and makes us reliant on allies in more scenarios than before.  

However the scrapping NIMROD AEW I see as less of a mistake since I have real doubts as to its long term effectiveness - we should have gone for our own Boeing E3A from the very start.

Can't see this being a NATO-led operation Dutch. Germany and Turkey are both dead-set against it (although Germany only abstained at the UN last night rather than vote against it). NATO could hardly be officially involved with two key states opposing the action. More likely to be a \"coalition of the willing\" again I'd have thought.

I can well understand Turkey being against the action, but it's difficult to understand why Germany is against it. Mind, they do have previous. It was Germany's rush to recognise Croatia and Slovenia's independence in the early 90s that accelerated the Balkans War, and then they were one of the least willing nations to get involved in pulling the warring sides apart. They have a heavy satain on their conscience over that one.

You may be right BST, since requiring concensus means every member nation has a veto, but then NATO would (again) run the risk of becoming perceived as being irrelevant politically (although militarily they are clearly the only game in town when it comes to procedures and systems for armed forces of many nations operating together). If you are right I will be disappointed with NATO.

[Berkshire Rover]

What a refreshing change to read cogent, well presented points of view on a topic of real importance, Dutch, Filo, BST, Mike, I am indebted to you.

[RedJ]

Agreed, BR. Been reading this, and to be honest, I don't think many could've put it better than you guys have.

[CusworthRovers]

Although it does boil ones piss, when we made a fortune out of arming and training the Colonel and his soldiers.

[BobG]

How lonmg until the first of our new carriers 'could' be ready - rather than when it actually will be I mean! Perhaps arrangements have been discussed to cover our loss of reach for a while? I seem to recall some interesting conversations with the French not too long ago?

Cheers

BobG

[Filo]

Ark Royal only lowered it`s ensign last week, surely it can be given one more run out, they can`t have started with the burning gear yet, there might be the odd Harrier lying about that has n`t gone to the wreckers yet

[RedJ]

Apparently two ships in the Med - the Cumberland and I'd assume the Ark Royal - are being ordered to stay there and aid with the operations. Hearsay, mind, unless anyone can back that up.

[Filo]

Ark royal is in Portsmouth awaiting the men with the burning gear! Thanks to Dave and George!

[RedJ]

Must be another + the Cumberland then.

[Viking Don]

US carriers been spotted off Gibraltar headed east. Expect I'll be seeing a few when I get there on Sunday. I expect they've been hanging around the area for the last few weeks.

[Sandy Lane]

Scary stuff now that it's happened.  I think it's very wrong to sit by and watch a dictator slaughter innocent people because they want change, and I had hoped it would not come to a military attack, but now that its started my doubts start to grow especially when it's supposed to be UN sanctioned and some of the Arab countries, along with China and Russia start to express doubts or don't support the efforts in the way it was planned.  And why is it always US-led?  Of course the threat of further terrorism from Gaddafi is possible again, but I hope he is weakened and distracted by what is happening in his country and why.  But I think the bottom line with him is that he is a madman, so you never know.

[The Red Baron]

My big question is \"what's the endgame?\" I have to say I'm rather torn over the whole enterprise. On the one hand, I applaud the desire to stop Gaddafi using his forces to butcher the rebels. On the other, how can we protect the people from Gaddafi without removing him from power. And unless we \"get lucky\" with a missile strike, I can't see how we can do that without putting troops on the ground.

There also seems to be a worrying split within the Government. Liam Fox, who is something of a neo-con, seems to see the ultimate objective as regime change, yet William Hague is talking about protecting the Libyan people. That split is probably reflected elsewhere in other western governments, and might be why all of a sudden the Arab League doesn't seem so keen.

I fear another Iraq...

[River Don]

I think it's likely the objective is regime change but they don't want to say so. The official line is \"we're in there to protect the Libyan people\" but ultimately the only way I can see them doing that is to get rid of Gadaffi and his clan.

I bet they're arming and training the rebels now.

[Sandy Lane]

Sadly, I'd have to agree about it may turn into another Iraq, TRB.  

Overall war is so hard to justify though -- you can be against involvement in wars, yet don't want to watch innocent people slaughtered.  My hope is that we are doing it for the right humanitarian reasons, even though I do recognize that the distinction for the US this time is more likely that Gaddafi/libyans were responsible for the Pan Am bombing as virtually no oil comes from Libya, or only like 2%.   Sadly we tend to pick and choose our battles depending on our oil interests, so I hope  this one can end with toppling the Gaddafi regime -- though realistically I'm sure they all want to 'eliminate' him. As River Don says, they just would rather not say it. So by arming the rebels, we'll be killing Gaddafi by proxy.  

I'm starting to feel not so confident now about the world and the future...

[Highland Rover]

It's not so long ago , late 1960's I think , that we had a large military presence in Libya at the El Adam air base

[River Don]

It won't be like Iraq, there is zero appetite for seeing western ground troops committed to a ground war.

They're gambling that the Libyan people have the ability to see the job out if the deny Gadaffi his air force and whatever else they feel they can take out. If that fails, I think they'll push for the Arab League to sort out the mess.

[donnyproletarian]

This move against Gadafi is likely to galvanise the lybians behind him effectively undermining the move to oust him from the locals.Lybians are not stupid .They know the rest of the world doesnt give a toss about there human rights as evidenced over the last 20 years or so .They do know however, that there saviours would not turn there nose up at the oil which gadafi has effectively denied them .Meanwhile more people will die in the interests of big bussiness in another  conflict that has sod all to do with ordinary people  but who will be expected to pay the price in taxes and blood.

[Filo]

The question right now is, has the coalition of nations over stepped the UN resolution, which called for a no fly zone, knocking out radar capability`s and anti aircraft batteries are legitimate targets in an attempt to achieve the no fly zone. As I see it, attacking Gadaffi`s forces is not part of the UN resolution, the ground war should be left to the Libyan people, if Gadaffi wins the ground war then so be it! we`ve evened the odds up by rendering the Libyan air force useless, now let them get on with it, but we all know that the coalition`s objectives are to remove Gadaffi from power. The Arab League wants to make their minds up whether they are in or out as well, they asked for intervention but appear to be slow in providing any military assistance!

[The L J Monk]

What's the UN's stance in terms of deploying military resources in Zimbabwe, Sudan and DR Congo?