In Libya, NATO (mainly French and British) fighter-bomber pilots are learning a hard lesson about how effective ground troops can be at hiding themselves from air attack. The Libyan forces have quickly adapted to an enemy that controls the skies, and is armed with highly accurate smart bombs and missiles. One of the obvious ploys is to move troops and munitions in civilian vehicles. The Libyan forces are also using camouflage, and other deceptions to escape attack.
Yes. I'm biased with an Army (in the Guard and in the signal corps, so I'm not claiming to be a snake-eater mind you) background, but I predicted this adaptation on the third day of the war should the aerial shock and awe fail to break loyalist morale quickly:
But if the loyalists hunker down around civilians in the Sirte region and adapt to Western air power, they'll get mostly used to it and cope--especially if American planes pull back to just supporting roles without pulling triggers and the more limited French and British capabilities are the main effort. Then, the rebel army won't be enough to push past Sirte and march on Tripoli.
Of course, I do have history on my side for this bias.
So now the British and French are worried about their supply of smart weapons, meaning that air power could become even less effective apart from loyalist adaptation.
Even though the notion of a Western ground intervention is officially off the table, the idea is edging its way up as an option to a losing hand. NATO admits it can't defend Misrata from the air; Britain and France are sending advisers to help the rebels (but not at the pointy end of the stick where they could call in NATO fire); and France thinks that ground troops should be considered by the UN:
France is joining Britain in sending military officers to Libya to help rebel forces organize and bolster the NATO air campaign that has failed to rout Moammar Gadhafi's military.
France insisted Wednesday that it is not ready to send ground troops of its own into Libya, but says the U.N. Security Council should consider it. NATO, leading the U.N.-sanctioned international military operation to protect civilians, now acknowledges that airstrikes alone cannot stop the heavy shelling by Gadhafi's forces.
Yes, the French defense minister actually said that ground intervention "merits international reflection." Ponder that attitude in the midst of war. Hell, go ahead and invest some quiet reflection time, eh?
Yet the way ground intervention is being raised, NATO ground intervention would probably be done in the least effective manner by going in to passively defend Misrata and possibly Ajdabiya. If NATO sends in ground troops, they should be massed to bypass the loyalist forces confronting rebels at Misrata and Ajdabiya in order to drive on Tripoli. I guarantee that most loyalist forces will back off from Misrata and Ajdabiya to race back to Tripoli. That would protect civilians and make the moving loyalist forces more vulnerable to NATO air power.
And if the loyalists don't react that way and keep hammering Misrata and Ajdabiya? Well, that's even better. I'll trade Misrata and Ajdabiya for Tripoli any day. The loyalists won't survive that trade.
But if NATO does go in eventually on the ground, we should remember that after a couple months of fighting the civil war and NATO, the loyalists have adapted on the ground in other ways. I still think a division's worth of good Western troops would drive on Tripoli successfully and defeat the loyalists, but the operation will be harder now and more expensive in blood than it would have been two months ago. The loyalists are now combat veterans. They won't be as well equipped or supported as Western forces, but combat experience will improve their performance against Western troops who may be green even if well trained and equipped.
This is another reason why I was a band aid-off-fast kind of guy when the revolt took off and Western reaction was being debated. Had we gone in early while the loyalists were still reeling with the initial desertions and defections, they would have been easy prey for a Western invasion. Indeed, if we had gone in with troops when the shock and awe of the aerial intervention a month ago had full impact, we could have broken the loyalists. But no, we are slowly escalating and in time may reach the point where we are fighting on the ground long after it could have been a cheap operation, simply because we hoped each increment of escalation will finally do the trick, or we'll just get lucky.
Or we'll decline to escalate at some point and just lose. That's quite possible, too.
UPDATE: Raising the ground option by citing the 1999 experience. Of course, if this war is history repeating itself as farce, it will only be a threat and Khaddafi will understand that.
UPDATE: Another half measure on the escalation ladder:
The Obama administration plans to give the Libyan opposition $25 million in non-lethal assistance in the first direct U.S. aid to the rebels after weeks of assessing their capabilities and intentions, officials said Wednesday. ...
Initially, the administration had proposed supplying the rebels with vehicles and portable fuel storage tanks but those items were dropped from the list of potential aid on Wednesday after concerns were expressed that those could be converted into offensive military assets, the officials said.
The list is still being revised but now covers items such as medical supplies, uniforms, boots, tents, personal protective gear, radios and Halal meals, the officials said. Most of the items are expected to come from Pentagon stocks, they said.
My. Do be careful that we don't unlevel the playing field by giving the rebels on whose side we are fighting anything that might be used for offensive purposes!
Also, just how bad off are the rebels if Moslems in a Moslem country are incapable of getting Halal meals without our help?
This is gonna work out just swell.
