Sunday, February 27, 2011

A Virtual Intervention?

I'm amused that even a think tank can call for NATO intervention in Libya and assume that our 6th Fleet can form the backbone of an intervention based on no-fly, no-sail, and no-drive zones.

One, while we can certainly send ships to 6th Fleet, it normally has few ships, and the few ships it has are really just in transit between the Middle East and our East Coast. Better to count on the Italian and French navies for the core of a naval force.

Second, I'm not sure what the zones achieve.

A no-sail zone is pointless despite the claim that Libyan naval forces have shelled rebels. Libya's navy is a joke and can hardly be significant. Khaddafi would do himself more good to take loyal sailors and form them into ad hoc ground units.

A no-fly zone would be expensive and resource intensive and the Libyan air forces hasn't been much a factor despite early bombings of rebels. And there is no way we'd risk shooting down transport planes that could contain civilian shields along with imported mercenaries and supplies. Further, if the rebels manage to put some of the anti-aircraft missiles they captured on Libyan bases into action, the rebels would either have to shut them down and rely on our planes for protection or we'd risk having our planes attacked by rebel air defenses.

As for no-drive zones, are you stoned? Do we have blue force tracker on rebel stuff? Can we tell the difference between trucks of refugees and armed militias from high altitude? Or do we assume anything traveling west is rebel and heading east is Khaddafi's? We'll accidentally kill civilians this way and the world press will be all over it blaming us for atrocities.

This is a virtual intervention proposal that lacks a sense of realism and assumes Khaddafi will lose so we can do the minimum to appear like we are on the rebel side. If we're going to intervene, let's not pretend to intervene. Resolve to land a division-sized NATO force at Tripoli, take the city, and shoot Khaddafi on the spot. Now that's an intervention.

If we really want to intervene without putting in decisive ground power to tip the balance to the rebels, we could use naval and air power to escort humanitarian aid to eastern Libya to demonstrate our power and support for the rebels. And quietly (and more effectively) send in civilian technicians to help the rebels put anti-aircraft missiles and other weapons, armored vehicles, and transport in working order; and to organize logistics (including getting oil moving out to provide money to sustain their side) so the rebels can hold what they have and go on offense before Khaddafi can settle his troops down and prepare for a long slog.

Throw in information from recon assets to help the rebels know what they are facing and where the enemy forces are, and we would have the basis of an effective intervention that avoids the problems of a virtual intervention designed merely to look like we are doing something.

UPDATE: Oh, and I still think any intervention should be European led. We've done enough for now and we're busy. If Europe can't handle a threat this close to Europe, what good are they?

I'm also absolutely disgusted to hear people calling for a humanitarian intervention in Libya justified by Khaddafi's support for terrorism and his oppression in the same breath condemn our interventions against Saddam and the Taliban!

Just heard some guy on TV spouting that line, saying we should go in and overthrow Khaddafi and then get out--unlike our wrong campaigns to fill the vacuums in Iraq and Afghanistan so something better rather than worse replaces the thug regimes we overthrew. Remember, some authority will arise, no? And if not, is chaos really better?

UPDATE: The French are doing what I'd do, anyway:

France says it is flying medical aid to the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi in what it calls the start of a "massive" operation to support opposition forces trying to topple Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

I have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'm getting used to being embarassed by our foreign policy inadequacies. What's one more? On the other hand, I'd rather not take the military lead in the Libya crisis since we are busy and less busy Europeans like Italy and France are close by. So French intervention is good. Unless they are staking out the humanitarian role in order to leave us the military roles by default.

I guess I'll be happy since at least a European country is taking the lead on Libya, as I've wanted them to do.