![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Now Is The Time?
With Libya's government actually shooting at people, there have been some questions about whether the US should do something about it. Certainly a great many people on twitter and other social media sites are asking where the rest of the world is.
Libya still a pariah state; nobody really considers Libya their bestest friend. Nobody's going to bat for him. And Gaddafi is bombing the protesters from the air and bombarding them from sea; in any nation in the scope of Europe that would be unacceptable. It's an atrocity. It's something that people all over the world that they wish they could stop.
So, can the US do something about it? Short answer, yes:
Libya, for all that Gaddafi keeps parading his troops all over, doesn't have much in the way of high-tech military power. Airplanes and ships are expensive, not only to buy but to maintain. They have a major advantage over a less advanced enemy, like a crowd of protesters, because they can't shoot back. You can't run up and talk to the crew of an airplane, or join hands with a warship floating half a mile out to sea. You don't need much in the way of tech - you just need something that shoot without being shot at.
Libya's air force is probably the best arm for this, the psychological effects of airplanes are well known - in some cases they can break up crowds just by flying overhead. But Libya doesn't have many planes. We know they have French-built Mirage F1s because two of them defected to Malta already. They also have a collection of MiGs and Sukhoi aircraft that may or may not work that nobody seems to know about. The Mirage F1s are older planes, designed in the 60s and introduced in the 70s, and are relatively modern by third world standards.
The Libyan Navy is also dependent on old model ships of either Soviet or Italian design - heavily built for 1960s era anti-shipping operations. They're loaded down with older surface-to-surface missiles, all of which don't do much again protesters. But they're also loaded with 76mm guns which are perfect for shooting at soft targets, like distant unarmed crowds.
Both of these systems are good against protesters because they're stand-off, they shoot from a distance large enough that the protesters can neither appeal to the gunners, nor fire back. But that makes them vulnerable, because it makes them easy to shoot. Unlike trying to separate protesters and soldiers on the ground, a ship or a plane is visible on radar from a long distance, and just as easy to shoot as it is to see.
The US's main presence in the area comes from the US Navy, who can move their own real estate off the coast of Libya. The nearest force is probably the Enterprise task force, which has just finished transferring through the Suez canal (in the wrong direction). The Enterprise force has the Enterprise, a large aircraft carrier, a cruiser, and a detachment of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It's difficult to explain just how much firepower that is - it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the Enterprise Strike Group has anti-land and anti-air capabilities comparable to the entire Royal Navy. Certainly their capabilities dwarf those of the assets Libya is using to shoot at protesters.
Libya's best option is to go back to tanks - it's hard to bomb tanks in the middle of crowds without hitting crowds. Failing that, they have stockpiles of Soviet made SS-N-2 and Italian made Otomat anti-ship missiles that they can fall back on to keep the American ships at bay, and Soviet made surface-to-air missiles to keep American planes away. But most of their missiles, while formidable on paper, are older, Vietnam and pre-Vietnam models. Missiles kept in storage tend to degrade, and nobody knows how many will actually fire. Furthermore, they've been seen before. The Israelis successfully countered the SS-N-2 in the Yom Kippur war, and American aircraft learned how to deal with the older Soviet SAMs during the Vietnam war while flying less capable planes.
The American commander, on the other hand, has sixty aircraft at his disposal, probably more then the Libyan Air Force in its entirety. Even if he doesn't want to risk them to SAMs, he can launch over four hundred missiles from a hundred kilometers off shore, and fight a duel with the seven Italian made ships (who can only fire twenty-eight missiles before having to go back and reload). America may not have the ability to go to downtown Tripoli and force the Army to back off, but they can sit comfortably offshore and shoot down or sink anything that dares make more then a blip on the radar screen and fire at protesters.
So why hasn't the US done anything about it yet? Well, I don't know, but I have a few ideas:
No More Regime Change: This whole "unilateral intervention in Muslim countries to help oppressed populations" thing has been tried before by the US, and it hasn't gone too well. There's a lot of well-earned suspicion regarding any US unilateral intervention, and Obama may well feel that trying regime change on an Arab country isn't worth it, no matter how good our intentions are.
Avoid A Rallying Point: Gaddafi would probably love a civil war - something that gives him a chance of staying in power. His best chance at this is to give people something that they hate even more then they hate him - like the US. Poking our nose in it will give him something to wave in people's faces, and that might be worse for the people of Libya then what we could do for them.
Collateral-shy: Missiles go astray. Planes, when shot down, have to go somewhere. Even in the "clean" environment of an enforced no-fly, no-sail operation, people will die. Civilians will die. Nobody knows how many, but it's not something people like to gamble on when we're not already in the shit.
Burning Our Bridges: In Egypt, a military regime led by Hosni Mubarak was replaced by a military regime led by the military's supreme council. From outside it looks like a huge revolution, but there are some indications that these revolutions are leading to the military rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If this follows suit, the military might be in control when Gaddafi falls, and shooting at the military is a bad way to make a first impression. It might be that the rest of the world is staying out of it just so that they don't piss off the people who will still be in power when it's over.
Nobody's Asked Us: Well, lots of people ahve asked us, but it's not like there's a name we can attach to it. Obama may have decided that we aren't going to do anything unless we get asked, and since there seems to be very little in the leadership column among the protesters, nobody can ask us.
We're Taking the Long View: Obama may be taking the long view. What's there to gain in Libya? Of course, helping Libyans achieve their freedom could lead to a permanent bond of friendship between our countries, like the one between the United States and France - oh, wait. National relationships operate on human timescales. In that mode, Obama might decide that the benefits are fleeting, and the cost of stirring up the hornet's nest a bit too high. Let someone else stick their foot in it. Of course in the long run, we're still all dead.
Are these good reasons? I don't know. I'm wary of using US military power directly in another country's affairs, even for a good cause. But these are options we should keep on the table if things deteriorate further - you can bet others will be thinking about them too.
Libya still a pariah state; nobody really considers Libya their bestest friend. Nobody's going to bat for him. And Gaddafi is bombing the protesters from the air and bombarding them from sea; in any nation in the scope of Europe that would be unacceptable. It's an atrocity. It's something that people all over the world that they wish they could stop.
So, can the US do something about it? Short answer, yes:
Libya, for all that Gaddafi keeps parading his troops all over, doesn't have much in the way of high-tech military power. Airplanes and ships are expensive, not only to buy but to maintain. They have a major advantage over a less advanced enemy, like a crowd of protesters, because they can't shoot back. You can't run up and talk to the crew of an airplane, or join hands with a warship floating half a mile out to sea. You don't need much in the way of tech - you just need something that shoot without being shot at.
Libya's air force is probably the best arm for this, the psychological effects of airplanes are well known - in some cases they can break up crowds just by flying overhead. But Libya doesn't have many planes. We know they have French-built Mirage F1s because two of them defected to Malta already. They also have a collection of MiGs and Sukhoi aircraft that may or may not work that nobody seems to know about. The Mirage F1s are older planes, designed in the 60s and introduced in the 70s, and are relatively modern by third world standards.
The Libyan Navy is also dependent on old model ships of either Soviet or Italian design - heavily built for 1960s era anti-shipping operations. They're loaded down with older surface-to-surface missiles, all of which don't do much again protesters. But they're also loaded with 76mm guns which are perfect for shooting at soft targets, like distant unarmed crowds.
Both of these systems are good against protesters because they're stand-off, they shoot from a distance large enough that the protesters can neither appeal to the gunners, nor fire back. But that makes them vulnerable, because it makes them easy to shoot. Unlike trying to separate protesters and soldiers on the ground, a ship or a plane is visible on radar from a long distance, and just as easy to shoot as it is to see.
The US's main presence in the area comes from the US Navy, who can move their own real estate off the coast of Libya. The nearest force is probably the Enterprise task force, which has just finished transferring through the Suez canal (in the wrong direction). The Enterprise force has the Enterprise, a large aircraft carrier, a cruiser, and a detachment of Arleigh Burke-class destroyers. It's difficult to explain just how much firepower that is - it wouldn't be a stretch to say that the Enterprise Strike Group has anti-land and anti-air capabilities comparable to the entire Royal Navy. Certainly their capabilities dwarf those of the assets Libya is using to shoot at protesters.
Libya's best option is to go back to tanks - it's hard to bomb tanks in the middle of crowds without hitting crowds. Failing that, they have stockpiles of Soviet made SS-N-2 and Italian made Otomat anti-ship missiles that they can fall back on to keep the American ships at bay, and Soviet made surface-to-air missiles to keep American planes away. But most of their missiles, while formidable on paper, are older, Vietnam and pre-Vietnam models. Missiles kept in storage tend to degrade, and nobody knows how many will actually fire. Furthermore, they've been seen before. The Israelis successfully countered the SS-N-2 in the Yom Kippur war, and American aircraft learned how to deal with the older Soviet SAMs during the Vietnam war while flying less capable planes.
The American commander, on the other hand, has sixty aircraft at his disposal, probably more then the Libyan Air Force in its entirety. Even if he doesn't want to risk them to SAMs, he can launch over four hundred missiles from a hundred kilometers off shore, and fight a duel with the seven Italian made ships (who can only fire twenty-eight missiles before having to go back and reload). America may not have the ability to go to downtown Tripoli and force the Army to back off, but they can sit comfortably offshore and shoot down or sink anything that dares make more then a blip on the radar screen and fire at protesters.
So why hasn't the US done anything about it yet? Well, I don't know, but I have a few ideas:
No More Regime Change: This whole "unilateral intervention in Muslim countries to help oppressed populations" thing has been tried before by the US, and it hasn't gone too well. There's a lot of well-earned suspicion regarding any US unilateral intervention, and Obama may well feel that trying regime change on an Arab country isn't worth it, no matter how good our intentions are.
Avoid A Rallying Point: Gaddafi would probably love a civil war - something that gives him a chance of staying in power. His best chance at this is to give people something that they hate even more then they hate him - like the US. Poking our nose in it will give him something to wave in people's faces, and that might be worse for the people of Libya then what we could do for them.
Collateral-shy: Missiles go astray. Planes, when shot down, have to go somewhere. Even in the "clean" environment of an enforced no-fly, no-sail operation, people will die. Civilians will die. Nobody knows how many, but it's not something people like to gamble on when we're not already in the shit.
Burning Our Bridges: In Egypt, a military regime led by Hosni Mubarak was replaced by a military regime led by the military's supreme council. From outside it looks like a huge revolution, but there are some indications that these revolutions are leading to the military rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. If this follows suit, the military might be in control when Gaddafi falls, and shooting at the military is a bad way to make a first impression. It might be that the rest of the world is staying out of it just so that they don't piss off the people who will still be in power when it's over.
Nobody's Asked Us: Well, lots of people ahve asked us, but it's not like there's a name we can attach to it. Obama may have decided that we aren't going to do anything unless we get asked, and since there seems to be very little in the leadership column among the protesters, nobody can ask us.
We're Taking the Long View: Obama may be taking the long view. What's there to gain in Libya? Of course, helping Libyans achieve their freedom could lead to a permanent bond of friendship between our countries, like the one between the United States and France - oh, wait. National relationships operate on human timescales. In that mode, Obama might decide that the benefits are fleeting, and the cost of stirring up the hornet's nest a bit too high. Let someone else stick their foot in it. Of course in the long run, we're still all dead.
Are these good reasons? I don't know. I'm wary of using US military power directly in another country's affairs, even for a good cause. But these are options we should keep on the table if things deteriorate further - you can bet others will be thinking about them too.