Thread: Historical precedent for strategy in Libya?

Originally Posted by Andrewl

That seems like it could happen here as well.

Andrew

That is a very distinct possibilty.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

But even so, the Egyptian military gets guns and money to buy guns from the west. I really have no idea how independent the Egyptian military is though. I suspect they still have really strong dependency on the US.

Andrew

Egypt gets their weapons from all over; US, Russia (Soviet), Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Poland, not to mention their own locally made arms, which are most numerous and standard issue insofar as small arms are concerned.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Egypt gets their weapons from all over; US, Russia (Soviet), Germany, Switzerland, Italy, Poland, not to mention their own locally made arms, which are most numerous and standard issue insofar as small arms are concerned.

And who pays for it?

Originally Posted by Andrewl

And who pays for it?

Apparently everyone (at least anyone who uses the Suez Canal); but particularly Egyptians living abroad.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The US played both Iran and Iraq against each other so that neither would win back in the 80's.

We didn't use our air power to weaken either side in the battle field, it is not comparable to the scenario you posted at the top of the thread.

Originally Posted by Andrewl

The rebel weapons are indeed of western european origin, but they were looted in this case. There is no evidence of the west arming libyan rebels here.

Andrew

1. Weapons (if you will look at the pictures of the rebels) are new;
2. Rebels are instructed how to use them (also on the photos);
3. They could not have looted them because Libyan army does not use such weapons.

Originally Posted by AkDiesel

Dress up the Libya any way you would like, bottom line it IS ABOUT THE OIL THIS TIME.

With the oil lines within Libya more under threat now, Now it is time for US and Europe to come together to make sure the FLOW does not stop..........

Done already!

French announced that rebels (no one quite knows what or who they are) formed a "Libyan oil company" instead of "National oil corporation".

No one kows who the rebels are, no one knows who are in the "rebel government", but French already recognised it as legitimate, even though no one voted for them.

But, the oil corporation is already in place!

Btw, Gaddafi (just before he became a target for "international community") refused French demands to privatise National oil corporation and put it up for sale.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

It doesn't appear the rebels are using western weapons either, other than those that were taken from Qadhafi’s military.

Tell me these weapons (photos were taken from WESTERN sources) are not NATO, or new, or there are no instructors who teach rebels how to use them.

??? ?????????? ?????? ????????? ???????????. ???????????? ????????????? | ??????.???

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Assuming the strategy is how i see it:

No-fly zone.
no heavy armaments.

Essentially create an even battle field so that the rebels have a chance. I.e., prevent the easy and quick slaughter of rebels and civilians using tanks and planes, etc..

Anybody know if/when this has been attempted before?

How did it work, what happened?

Or is this something without precedent?

Andrew

I didn't know the purpose of the UN resolution was to have a few nations become managers of a civil war. How about that Barack Obama? Let give a shout out to Barack!

Originally Posted by Alma

Tell me these weapons (photos were taken from WESTERN sources) are not NATO, or new, or there are no instructors who teach rebels how to use them.

They are not NATO, they are likely out of stores from Egypt.

Originally Posted by CYDdharta

Apparently everyone (at least anyone who uses the Suez Canal); but particularly Egyptians living abroad.

Egypt is the 2nd largest US military aid recipient after Israel.

Andrew

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

We didn't use our air power to weaken either side in the battle field, it is not comparable to the scenario you posted at the top of the thread.

It is comparable in terms of larger powers influencing conditions on the battle field. Both sides in that conflict were aided by the US (and others, of course). The purpose was to prevent either side from achieving victory. I.e., by completely balancing the battlefield.

The difference of course here is that the IC does indeed want one side to win - which makes the larger powers role in Iraq/Iran far more insane and immoral.

Andrew

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

You don't launch attacks to "even the playing filed" you launch attacks to win.

If "leveling the playing field" is the definition of victory, and you accomplish that objective, then you've won.