But this observation is really sad:
European leaders mulling military intervention in Libya have doubtless been warned that there are huge hurdles to any action, not least winning a United Nations mandate, ensuring U.S. involvement, and securing support from key Arab and African allies in the region. But are they overlooking another obstacle in the form of defense cuts? With European governments striving to balance their budgets, including defense expenditure, questions are being raised about whether such money-saving measures could jeopardize their ability to launch operations in Libya.
This is Libya we're talking about. Not exactly the Prussia of North Africa. And most of their army has defected to the rebels--who, incidentally, hold a large chunk of the country--or gone home. Like I've said, the Europeans could topple Khaddafi by taking Tripoli with three good brigades and supporting arms--say 10-15,000 troops backed by sea and air power. And we could be a major help with air power and add in some naval and ground power to be nice.
The question then is could Europe's sad defense structure take on Libya's sad defenses? Well, I think so. And even the article says this:
"At the moment, Europe can barely deploy 100,000 troops, while the U.S. Marine Corps can deploy 200,000. Europe doesn't have anything approaching the structure and experiences to develop a military operation on its own," [a European defense expert] says.
First, our Marine Corps does not have the ability to deploy 200,000 men. The entire corps doesn't have 200,000 on active duty, and of those on active duty, a good chunk will be new recruits in training, in school, sick, recovering from deployment, in transit, in the brig, or otherwise non-deployable. Granted, a lot of support functions are handled by the Army, so their tooth-to-tail ratio is pretty high. But still, it isn't above 100% of total troops. Sheesh, even Europe's defense analysts aren't up to par, let alone their actual militaries.
Second, I did say we should help logistically. But the pointy end of the spear should be European for this mission.
Let's take the defense expert at his word that Europe has 100,000 troops deployable. Even subtracting 40,000 or so in Afghanistan (which includes a large chunk of British troops), are you telling me that Europe can't take on a truncated military of a small country on their own doorstep that is already fighting a large rebellion?
Really? Now that is sad.
