• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

UN and NATO to Gaddafi: Operation Odyssey Dawn |OT|

Status
Not open for further replies.
G

GillianSeed79

Member
My only concern with the rebels is that if they if they do win, what guarantee is there that Libya still won't devolve into a civil war? I support the intervention and hope Gaddaffi is removed from power, but I'm skeptical everyone will be on board with the opposition-led government if they succeed.

I mean it's a completely different situation from Iraq, but what's to stop an insurgency from forming or other nefarious players from trying to destabilize Libya for their own interests in the event of a power vacuum. Somewhat off topic, but just in Iraq today, 56 were killed and 98 wounded in a shootout in Tikrit.
 
L

Lagspike_exe

Member
avaya said:
No these are very light air strikes. They can ramp this up to the levels seen in Serbia.
Click to expand...
NATO didn't do any damage to Serbian military structure. Serbia retreated after NATO started bombing power plants and infrastructure. This entire campaign is barely UN approved, not sure how others will react if NATO starts bombing civilian and infrastructure targets.

It is questionable that even a much stronger bombing can weaken Gadaffi's army enough to get overrun by the rebels. It's very clear that even though loyalists are badly organized, rebels have an even worst chain of command and let's not even start on armament. Spearheading through the rest of the country and taking Tripoli is very hard under current conditions,

Besides, it's quite possible rebels will stop at oil fields. Capture oil fields, initiate a war of attrition. Oil-for-weapon program incoming.
 
O

owlbeak

Member
Not sure if posted yet, but amazing photo:

pb-110329-missile-jw.photoblog900.jpg


Jonathan Woods writes:This image is certain to inspire a double take. Getty Images photographer Mahmud Turkia captured a bomb plummeting into the ground in what he is reporting to be the "tightly-guarded residence of Moammar Gadhafi and other military targets."
Click to expand...
 
J

Jason's Ultimatum

Member
OuterWorldVoice said:
they brown
Click to expand...

and they muslims

But seriously. It's good to hear that many of the rebels are made up of doctors, lawyers, teachers, etc, and although there Al Qaeda and Hezbollah members apart of the rebellion, that doesn't mean they would have some form of political power if and when Gaddafi leaves.

Then again, Abdel-Hakim al-Hasidi is the rebel leader, and it'll be interesting to see where his position stands in a post Gaddafi regime.
 
I

Ignis Fatuus

Banned
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Someone seriously needs to start giving these guys links to old US training manuals. A ton deal with Soviet equipment and also organizational skills and tactics and they could really use them. I'm not even joking.
Click to expand...
There are defected commanders on the ground but by all accounts, the fighters do not want to follow orders from anyone. It's impossible to get them organized.
 
C

Centurion

Banned
KingK said:
It's probably (hopefully) just a precaution. It would be pretty dumb not to have ground troops ready and waiting just in case, given the volatility of the situation.
Click to expand...

eh, i think it might be a counter against the Gadaffi troops gaining ground in many areas that were under the rebels control.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
KingK said:
It's probably (hopefully) just a precaution. It would be pretty dumb not to have ground troops ready and waiting just in case, given the volatility of the situation.
Click to expand...

Ready and waiting? There is no circumstance US troops should be on the ground in Libya.
 
M

Manos: The Hans of Fate

Banned
Ignis Fatuus said:
There are defected commanders on the ground but by all accounts, the fighters do not want to follow orders from anyone. It's impossible to get them organized.
Click to expand...
Still it would help if they could have some materials at least on how weapons work.

Regardless god bless them for being crazy enough to try what they're doing in that video.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
KingK said:
If some of our guys get shot down and need an evacuation?
Click to expand...

Well, ok, sure, but realistically that's not "troops" that's a helicopter and a dozen or so men going down and a snatch and run.

Although that doesn't mean I think we should be in a position where our planes could be "shot down" in the first place.
 
D

Dubbedinenglish

Banned
KingK said:
If some of our guys get shot down and need an evacuation?
Click to expand...

Seems like more of a Humanitarian outfit with the full breadth of troops trained for securing and delivering goods. As far search & Rescue those units are already on one of the ships off the coast of Libya right now (those guys rescued the F-15 pilots a few days ago
). Makes sense too with the fighting moving away from rebel strongholds, now it is more safe to bring in aid via C-130s or helicopters.
 
K

KingK

Member
Gaborn said:
Well, ok, sure, but realistically that's not "troops" that's a helicopter and a dozen or so men going down and a snatch and run.

Although that doesn't mean I think we should be in a position where our planes could be "shot down" in the first place.
Click to expand...

Probably right, but they don't really say how many of them are ground troops.

ABC article said:
The unit is relieving the 26th MEU, which took part in some of the initial assaults. The 22nd is a Marine, air and ground task force. Some are trained for aviation combat, others for ground combat. They can handle evacuations and humanitarian missions too.
Click to expand...

It really just sounds like it's one unit sent to relieve another and assist in the ongoing operations. I think we might be reading a bit too much into the fact that some of them are trained for ground combat.

edit:
Dubbedinenglish said:
Seems like more of a Humanitarian outfit with the full breadth of troops trained for securing and delivering goods. As far search & Rescue those units are already on one of the ships off the coast of Libya right now (those guys rescued the F-15 pilots a few days ago
). Makes sense too with the fighting moving away from rebel strongholds, now it is more safe to bring in aid via C-130s or helicopters.
Click to expand...
That makes sense too.
 
X

Xeke

Banned
Gaborn said:
Well, ok, sure, but realistically that's not "troops" that's a helicopter and a dozen or so men going down and a snatch and run.

Although that doesn't mean I think we should be in a position where our planes could be "shot down" in the first place.
Click to expand...

We should as a NATO force.
 
T

thekad

Banned
Gaborn said:
The US IS NATO. We contribute more to NATO than Britain and France COMBINED. Saying we should as a NATO force is the same as saying we should.
Click to expand...

Each of these statements is false.

Why even post if you don't know what you're talking about?
 
G

Gaborn

Member
thekad said:
Each of these statements is false.

Why even post if you don't know what you're talking about?
Click to expand...

Exactly what about it is false? Saying "the US IS NATO" is certainly not literally true but we are far and away the number one financial and military arm of NATO. We provide well over 20% of it's funding and more than that of it's military force.

Edit: In fact:

20110221_20101102_common_funded_budgets_2010-2011.jpg


I was mainly referring to the second column.
 
N

nyong

Banned
The U.S. is NATA. The Supreme Allied Commander has been an American since the beginning. America has been in charge of NATO since it's conception. The Canadian three-star soon to be "in charge" of the operation reports directly to another American admiral. Our contributions dwarf the other nations, not to mention the fact we've already ponied up over half a billion USD for the Libya effort.

Any attempt to portray what's going on in Libya as "NATO-led" is misleading. Nothing is really changing with respect to our role there. We're not passing off the leadership role.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
Igor Antunov said:
I think you proved his point. The US leads NATO, but it isn't NATO. Without europe's 80% contribution NATO doesn't exist.
Click to expand...

Europe's contribution is 80% but it's divided among more than 25 other countries. We are far and away the single largest contributor.
 
T

thekad

Banned
Gaborn said:
Exactly what about it is false? Saying "the US IS NATO" is certainly not literally true but we are far and away the number one financial and military arm of NATO. We provide well over 20% of it's funding and more than that of it's military force.

Edit: In fact:

http://www.nato.int/nato_static/ass..._20101102_common_funded_budgets_2010-2011.jpg

I was mainly referring to the second column.
Click to expand...

80% of NATO, ie the great majority, is not American. Britain and France, combined, contribute more than the US.

You were/are wrong. Stop peddling falsehoods.
 
K

KingK

Member
I would like to point out that the US is much much larger (in population, GDP, and land) than any of those EU countries individually. If you take UK, France, and Germany combined, it's much closer to the size of the US (though still quite a bit smaller) but "pays into" NATO more.

So the idea that "we are NATO" is stupid. We pay a lot into it, we may even be the "leader" of it, but at the end of the day, we're about a fifth of a global force. It's not fair to us or the other NATO members to imply that the US is the only important player.

edit: For example, GDP of France is $2.65 trillion and population is 62.5 million. GDP of US is $14.1 trillion and population is over 300 million. I don't think it's fair to expect France to contribute the same in NATO as the US.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
thekad said:
80% of NATO, ie the great majority, is not American. Britain and France, combined, contribute more than the US.

You were wrong. Stop peddling falsehoods.
Click to expand...

well, you're right in that Britain and France do combined contribute slightly more than the US does. But the US contribution is still far and away higher than any single country. It DWARFS all the other individual countries which is what really matters. NATO was set up as a collection of individual countries pooling their resources. To deny that the US is far and away the dominant voice in NATO is delusional.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
thekad said:
So now you're moving the goalposts.
Click to expand...

I said you were right about Britain and France. I thought it was more, perhaps it has been in some years. But yes, on that point you were correct.
 
N

nyong

Banned
Am I missing something here?
He also noted that 10 years ago, the US accounted for a little less than half of NATO members’ total defence spending, whereas “today, the American share is closer to 75 per cent,” he said, “and it will continue to grow, even with the new cuts in the Pentagon’s spending that US defence secretary Bob Gates announced last month”.
Click to expand...
http://www.natowatch.org/node/475

I distinctly remember reading somewhere else that the United States paid more than the other top two contributors combined. This is before considering that the United States accounts for 43% of the entire planet's defense spending, defense spending that funds the military that NATO uses.
 
A

AniHawk

Member
Gaborn said:
I said you were right about Britain and France. I thought it was more, perhaps it has been in some years. But yes, on that point you were correct.
Click to expand...
typical gaborn, giving credit where credit's due.
 
T

thekad

Banned
Here's what you said:

Gaborn said:
The US IS NATO.
Click to expand...

Actually, US is 20% of NATO. By Gaborn standards:

Bush, with his 30% approval rating, left with the entire country at his side. India IS the world. Gaborn passed his math test with flying colors.

No, the US isn't NATO.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
thekad said:
Here's what you said:



Actually, US is 20% of NATO. By Gaborn standards:

Bush, with his 30% approval rating, left with the entire country at his side. India IS the world. Gaborn passed his math test with flying colors.

No, the US isn't NATO.
Click to expand...

I meant the US is NATO as I noted not in the literal sense, but in the sense that as the largest single financial contributor (an undisputed fact by anyone) they have the largest individual voice in shaping NATO policy.
 
T

thekad

Banned
No, that's not what you meant. Because you clarified in the same post:

Gaborn said:
Saying we should as a NATO force is the same as saying we should.
Click to expand...

Don't post unless you're educated on the subject.

Now be good.
 
G

Gaborn

Member
thekad said:
No, that's not what you meant. Because you clarified in the same post:



Don't post unless you're educated on the subject.
Click to expand...

Man, I clarified what I meant in a follow up post. The fact that you want to quibble over this is totally expected though.
 
N

nyong

Banned
Unless I'm missing something here, the U.S. is 75% of NATO's total finances. What that chart doesn't show is that costs are allocated based on a formula using GDP. You can look at the numbers however you'd like, but it doesn't change the fact we're the largest donor without contest.


  • 75% of total funding
  • Dominant military role
  • U.S. Leadership

It's not misleading to call NATO a U.S. organization in practice. It's great from a political perspective, though, to have active participants from other countries in a coalition.
 
K

KingK

Member
If you want to be against intervention in Libya, that's fine, but you should drop this idea that NATO is just an arm of the US that's doing what we say to do. It's just not true and, if anything, it's the EU members of NATO that have a lot more (oil) at stake in this operation. That's why France has been so much more belligerent towards Gaddafi than the US since the beginning.

The international action in Libya is not US intervention, it really is international intervention. Like I said, you can be against all intervention, but you're incorrect in implying that it's just the US.
 
N

nyong

Banned
Fair enough. If you want to talk about political "pull" I suppose the US doesn't run the show. Only from a financial/operational point of view. Also: France is trying to prevent instability in Libya for the same reason they were so pissed off about Iraq. Yes, it's the oil. It's no coincidence that the media was reporting today that the rebels are already in talks to restart oil exports.

Back in 2003:

Oil the spur

In July 2001, when relations chilled, Saddam froze these companies' contracts, but renewed them once diplomatic relations thawed.

Even in 2001, France sold Iraq $650m-worth of goods, more than any other country, and was the Western country with the largest number of stands at last November's Baghdad Trade Fair.

But above all, the French are interested in Iraqi oil.

Nicolas Sarkis, of Arab Oil and Gas magazine, says France's state-controlled TotalFinaElf is poised to win contracts to drill the largest unexploited oil reserves in the world.

Ahmed Chalabi, the Iraqi banker who presides the Iraqi National Council - the American-backed organisation supposed to bring democracy to a post-Saddam Iraq - has said that American firms will be given a "preponderant role".

If war is unleashed on Iraq, it will not only be a blow to French diplomacy but to French industry as well.
Click to expand...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/2757797.stm
 
K

KingK

Member
nyong said:
Fair enough. If you want to talk about political "pull" I suppose the US doesn't run the show. Only from a financial/operational point of view. Also: France is trying to prevent instability in Libya for the same reason they were so pissed off about Iraq. Yes, it's the oil. It's no coincidence that the media was reporting today that the rebels are already in talks to restart oil exports.
Click to expand...

Of course it's the oil. I doubt doing the morally right thing is much of a motivator for any of the Western nations intervening there. However, that's not to say that acting in the interest of preserving strategic resources can't sometimes overlap with doing the right thing from a moral prospective.

In my opinion, this is one of those rare cases where I our intervention, and the methods we went about it, are justified from a moral perspective.
 
N

nyong

Banned
At best Libya is about doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I have no doubt the motivation is almost entirely economic as instability has literally stopped oil exports. Not to mention the fact that--despite claims to the contrary--we really are participating in regime change. We've openly declared we want the dictator out and every time Gaddafi looks to gain ground against the rebels (legit ground, this is essentially a civil war) we obliterate his forces, then step back and declare "We're protecting lives, not overthrowing Gaddafi"...it's akin to your little brother getting into a fight, and you, after declaring you won't fight your brother's fights for him, knock the other guy senseless every time he tries to get up, but let your brother throw the last punch. Clearly you've picked a side.

We've got Marines, gunships, and A-10's enroute too. We're going to pull a Kuwait on Gaddafi's ground forces, mark my words. We aren't done until the rebels win. And once the rebels win, the oil will flow again.
 
T

TacticalFox88

Banned
nyong said:
At best Libya is about doing the right thing for the wrong reasons. I have no doubt the motivation is almost entirely economic as instability has literally stopped oil exports. Not to mention the fact that--despite claims to the contrary--we really are participating in regime change. We've openly declared we want the dictator out and every time Gaddafi looks to gain ground against the rebels (legit ground, this is essentially a civil war) we obliterate his forces, then step back and declare "We're protecting lives, not overthrowing Gaddafi"...it's akin to your little brother getting into a fight, and you, after declaring you won't fight your brother's fights for him, knock the other guy senseless every time he tries to get up, but let your brother throw the last punch. Clearly you've picked a side.

We've got Marines, gunships, and A-10's enroute too. We're going to pull a Kuwait on Gaddafi's ground forces, mark my words. We aren't done until the rebels win. And once the rebels win, the oil will flow again.
Click to expand...
The minute Obama puts ground troops on the ground is the minute he can almost kiss his presidency goodbye.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Intel CEO says semiconductors will become more important than oil in geopolitics
Business
14
1K
22:22:22 replied
Financial Times: How Brad Smith used Microsoft’s $1bn law and lobbying machine to win Activision battle
News Drama Business 2 3
127
10K
Topher replied
Baldur’s Gate 3’s Patch 7 is live, huge patch notes!
2
66
5K
Cyberpunkd replied
PlayStation Plus Extra & Premium Game Catalog for June: Monster Hunter Rise, Football Manager 2024, Crusader Kings III, After Us and more
News
29
2K
TGO replied
Helldivers II | Review Thread
Analysis Review 2 3
128
15K
splattered replied
Top Bottom