Level Of Involvement In Libya

[Reliant121]

Also, as much as I'd love to see Gaddafi gunned down there are two risks that come from it as far as I can see.

1) He becomes a martyr. He's got a storm of people already siding in the anti-modern crusader camp, you really don't want more by turning Gaddafi into a symbol of the west trying to clamp down on the islamic east.

2) One of his sons get control. Gaddafi, if a lunatic, is at least sensible. I can't put it past one of his offspring to be even more of a total nutjob.

[Captain Seafort]

That's an awfully cowboy attitude for someone who claims to despise the U.S.' sledgehammer way of intervention.

It's a war against a state military - in such circumstances, where there's a clear enemy who poses a vastly greater tactical threat than any insurgent force, massive firepower is both amply justified and much less likely to cause problems than in a counterinsurgency campaign. Tanks and non-combatants are far easier to tell apart than Taliban and non-combatants.

This is slightly different to previous interventions, because the speed of Gadaffi's advance towards Benghazi meant that action had to be taken pronto, without the luxury of getting all your ducks lined up beforehand, but it remains critical, once Gadaffi has been removed, to provide all the necessary resources, both material and human, under UN auspices to assist the new government in getting itself set up. That's where the US tends to fuck things up, and that's what I have the biggest problem with - you charge in, defeat the enemy, win the war, and then have bugger-all idea what to do next. You've improved vastly over the last few years, but I think most of that can be attributed to coming up with the best counterinsurgency expert in half a century. What you'd have done without Petreaus I don't know.

I'd tend to agree, but if Special Forces go in - and I mean Special Forces, not some group of direct-action spec-ops forces - it becomes very hard both to extricate yourself in a hurry and to allow the natives to claim the voctory and rebuild without influence.

Why? I wasn't suggesting announcing the SF side of things to the world - that's the whole point of them. Sneak in without fanfair, get the job done, and then get out.

[Mikey]

That's where the US tends to f**k things up, and that's what I have the biggest problem with - you charge in, defeat the enemy, win the war, and then have bugger-all idea what to do next. You've improved vastly over the last few years, but I think most of that can be attributed to coming up with the best counterinsurgency expert in half a century. What you'd have done without Petreaus I don't know.

To defend ourselves a bit, Lord knows that we're by far the youngest superpower in the world, yet have had in the years since WWII pretty much figure it all out for ourselves. You ask what we'd have done without Petraeus, and it's a fair question; but why couldn't we have had a little help from the Cold War on from our "allies?" Like I said, everyone loves to bitch about how the U.S. handles things... but nobody wants to contribute the lives and resources that we do, or step in and try to do things better. Why should be up to us to produce a Petraeus? Why doesn't the UKoGBaNI take the point and lead the charge, and see if they have any Petraeus'?

Why? I wasn't suggesting announcing the SF side of things to the world - that's the whole point of them. Sneak in without fanfair, get the job done, and then get out.

You have to be more specific, because I'm an American and speak American English. You seem to mean SOF, which is why I made the distinction clear. "Special Forces" is a term which refers specifically to the Green Berets - not direct-action intervention, but grassroots organization/equipment/education, etc. Special Forces don't "go in and get out," they're on the ground for months if not years before their effects are fully felt.

[Graham Kennedy]

To defend ourselves a bit, Lord knows that we're by far the youngest superpower in the world, yet have had in the years since WWII pretty much figure it all out for ourselves. You ask what we'd have done without Petraeus, and it's a fair question; but why couldn't we have had a little help from the Cold War on from our "allies?" Like I said, everyone loves to bitch about how the U.S. handles things... but nobody wants to contribute the lives and resources that we do, or step in and try to do things better. Why should be up to us to produce a Petraeus? Why doesn't the UKoGBaNI take the point and lead the charge, and see if they have any Petraeus'?

You DID have a whole boatload of help in the cold war from your European allies.

You've also had help from the UK in virtually every conflict you've been involved in for about the last thirty years or so.

As for why we don't do more, largely it's because nobody else has the military capability to do more. When we had the power to control a lot of the world, we did. Now we don't, so we don't. Your turn.

Don't worry, in time the US will fall from power and somebody else will have to do it.

[Mikey]

Come on, Graham, I'm not saying that nobody else contributed troops or anything like that. It just seems that in every police action, "peacekeeping" situation, enforcement of "democracy," or anything else like that in the last 40 or so years, the U.S. has had to contribute the lion's share... and more to the point, take the point position and be left to twist when everybody else who hasn't done what we have decide to condemn us for doing something.

Yes, I know the U.S. will fall from its position, just like the UKoGBaNI (though I daresay we won't have the global revolutions that you guys did,) just like France, just like Macedonia, just like Rome, etc., etc., ad nauseum. However, I wish I could feel as confident as you seem to that somebody else will do it.

[Graham Kennedy]

Come on, Graham, I'm not saying that nobody else contributed troops or anything like that. It just seems that in every police action, "peacekeeping" situation, enforcement of "democracy," or anything else like that in the last 40 or so years, the U.S. has had to contribute the lion's share... and more to the point, take the point position and be left to twist when everybody else who hasn't done what we have decide to condemn us for doing something.

And like I said, it's because nobody else can.

Military force doesn't scale linearly. The EU spends about 40% of what the US does on defence. By that standard we should have a European fleet of 4 giant nuclear powered aircraft carriers, 30 nuclear submarines, 850 fighters... but we don't, because each nation spends the dough on developing it's own tank, it's own frigate, it's own submarine. Most European nations just cannot project military force overseas at all because they don't have the transport, the logistics, etc to do it. Britain did it in the Falklands war, and that war so exhausted the UK military that the guy in charge said they would have had to pack up and go back home if it had gone on for another couple of weeks. There's just no way we could go and fight a war in Iraq or Afghanistan or even Libya on our own. And Britain has one of the most powerful militaries in the whole EU.

Sorry you're stuck with it, but that's just the way it is.

Yes, I know the U.S. will fall from its position, just like the UKoGBaNI (though I daresay we won't have the global revolutions that you guys did,) just like France, just like Macedonia, just like Rome, etc., etc., ad nauseum. However, I wish I could feel as confident as you seem to that somebody else will do it.

Nature abhors a vacuum. If (when) America falls, somebody will step up to run the world next.

[Mikey]

And like I said, it's because nobody else can.

Military force doesn't scale linearly. The EU spends about 40% of what the US does on defence. By that standard we should have a European fleet of 4 giant nuclear powered aircraft carriers, 30 nuclear submarines, 850 fighters... but we don't, because each nation spends the dough on developing it's own tank, it's own frigate, it's own submarine. Most European nations just cannot project military force overseas at all because they don't have the transport, the logistics, etc to do it. Britain did it in the Falklands war, and that war so exhausted the UK military that the guy in charge said they would have had to pack up and go back home if it had gone on for another couple of weeks. There's just no way we could go and fight a war in Iraq or Afghanistan or even Libya on our own. And Britain has one of the most powerful militaries in the whole EU.

Sorry you're stuck with it, but that's just the way it is.

Yep. all true. Doesn't change a damned thing, however. Explaining why something happens doesn't change the fact of that thing happening in the least. Percentages, or an analysis of ability, or anything at all like that don't somehow mitigate the fact that the majority of body bags leaving any of the conflicts in question are being shipped to the U.S.

Nature abhors a vacuum. If (when) America falls, somebody will step up to run the world next.

That's great for cleaning a rug or breathing, but in this case - who? Like you said, the UKoGBaNI is the most likely candidate in the EU, and you guys just can't. Japan? Nope - after their post-war constitution, that can't happen. Who, then?

[Graham Kennedy]

Yep. all true. Doesn't change a damned thing, however. Explaining why something happens doesn't change the fact of that thing happening in the least. Percentages, or an analysis of ability, or anything at all like that don't somehow mitigate the fact that the majority of body bags leaving any of the conflicts in question are being shipped to the U.S.

The question you asked was "why couldn't we have more help". That's why. If you don't care about why, then what's the complaint exactly? Do you just want to rail against reality or something?

That's great for cleaning a rug or breathing, but in this case - who? Like you said, the UKoGBaNI is the most likely candidate in the EU, and you guys just can't. Japan? Nope - after their post-war constitution, that can't happen. Who, then?

Who will rule the world when America can't? We can only guess. China, maybe. India perhaps.

[Mikey]

The question you asked was "why couldn't we have more help". That's why. If you don't care about why, then what's the complaint exactly?

In fact, the question was more implied to be, "Why does everyone complain about how the U.S. goes about things when the U.S. is practically the only entity to take point?" Further, it wasn't about help as it were, as is apparent if you don't ignore the context of the conversation at that point. It was about how the U.S. was being derided by the international community, which community seems to only wish to complain about the U.S. rather than actually attempting to do better.

Do you just want to rail against reality or something?

Yes, sometimes. There's nothing wrong with that.

Who will rule the world when America can't? We can only guess. China, maybe. India perhaps.

I hope you're only extemporizing, because if not I'd really be interested to hear the necessarily convoluted and implausible scenarios in which one of those situations would occur.

[Graham Kennedy]

How could China rule the world? Well it's got a massive population base, it's industrialising heavily, it's got an economy that's already massive and growing rapidly. There's potential to have a truly gigantic economy, which could spawn a truly gigantic military. Fifty years down the line they could easily be the world's superpower off the back of that.

Or maybe it will all fall apart for them. I remember a time when people were predicting that Japan would eclipse the US by about 2005, and it never happened. Prognosticating the future is notoriously difficult.

[Captain Seafort]

You ask what we'd have done without Petraeus, and it's a fair question; but why couldn't we have had a little help from the Cold War on from our "allies?"

Kindly remember who stopped the key domino from falling in SEA, who held the line on the Imjin, and who contributed four armoured divisions to the central front. Kindly remember also who tried to keep a Soviet ally from controlling the Suez canal until someone stepped in on the wrong side.

Why should be up to us to produce a Petraeus? Why doesn't the UKoGBaNI take the point and lead the charge, and see if they have any Petraeus'?

As Graham says, the US military matches that of the rest of the world combined, and substantially outweighs it it terms of logistic capacity. The reason we didn't take point was a) we don't have that capacity and b) we expected that you'd have put at least some thought into what you were going to do after you got rid of Saddam. As it turned out, the State Department had a plan, but were shut out of the planning, and the Pentagon had done fuck-all.

You have to be more specific, because I'm an American and speak American English. You seem to mean SOF, which is why I made the distinction clear. "Special Forces" is a term which refers specifically to the Green Berets - not direct-action intervention, but grassroots organization/equipment/education, etc. Special Forces don't "go in and get out," they're on the ground for months if not years before their effects are fully felt.

I mean Green Berets, SEALs, Delta, SAS, SBS, etc. Long-term training is one thing they can do. Another is to go in an either destroy high-value lightly defended targets or (more commonly) act as forward air controllers to improve liaison between the locals and their new air support. The effect is felt in hours, days, as was demonstrated in 2001 with the Northern Alliance.

[Mikey]

@ GK - China certainly has the manpower, but just might lack the inclination and (right now) the infrastructure to support force projection of the magnitude necessary.

Kindly remember who stopped the key domino from falling in SEA, who held the line on the Imjin, and who contributed four armoured divisions to the central front. Kindly remember also who tried to keep a Soviet ally from controlling the Suez canal until someone stepped in on the wrong side.

See my response to GK regarding this. Gracious, don't English people use generalities or idiomatic language? (Don't answer that, I know you do and are just ignoring it as convenient.)

As Graham says, the US military matches that of the rest of the world combined, and substantially outweighs it it terms of logistic capacity.

So you can't do the job we do rather than won't. The result is the same - if you don't for either reason, then you don't. EOS.

a) we don't have that capacity and

As I said above, the reason is immaterial insofar as mitigating the fact - it doesn't at all.

b) we expected that you'd have put at least some thought into what you were going to do after you got rid of Saddam. As it turned out, the State Department had a plan, but were shut out of the planning, and the Pentagon had done fuck-all.

I'm not defending the Pentagon's course of action at all. But inasmuch as this discussion, expecting great things is wonderful, but you don't really have leeway to bitch about the actualities if you don't help make the expectations come true. Again, I'm not talking about contributing troops (which you already know, but I'm trying to avoid future intentional misinterpretation.) What you seem to want is akin to hiring an architect from whom you can reliably expect great work; telling him to build you a house without any particular explanation of your preference; then bitching when the floorplan isn't exactly how you envisioned it.

I mean Green Berets, SEALs, Delta, SAS, SBS, etc. Long-term training is one thing they can do. Another is to go in an either destroy high-value lightly defended targets or (more commonly) act as forward air controllers to improve liaison between the locals and their new air support. The effect is felt in hours, days, as was demonstrated in 2001 with the Northern Alliance.

Then say what you mean. Special Forces = Green Berets. SEALs, Delta Force (which is counter-terrorism only, so wouldn't really apply here,) Rangers, PsyOps, etc. are all special operations forces, and (except for PsyOps) are all direct-action intervention. I was led to believe that the SAS and SBS are similar.

[Captain Seafort]

I'm not defending the Pentagon's course of action at all. But inasmuch as this discussion, expecting great things is wonderful, but you don't really have leeway to bitch about the actualities if you don't help make the expectations come true.

It's not great things that we expect - it's basic competence.

What you seem to want is akin to hiring an architect from whom you can reliably expect great work; telling him to build you a house without any particular explanation of your preference; then bitching when the floorplan isn't exactly how you envisioned it.

Asking for a house and not getting the precise layout envisaged is one thing. Iraq was the equivalent of asking for a house and getting a hole in the ground in the middle of a patch of nettles to shit in.

Then say what you mean. Special Forces = Green Berets. SEALs, Delta Force (which is counter-terrorism only, so wouldn't really apply here,) Rangers, PsyOps, etc. are all special operations forces, and (except for PsyOps) are all direct-action intervention. I was led to believe that the SAS and SBS are similar.

The Green Berets are US Army Special Forces. All the rest are special forces in terms of their role rather than their precise name. I'm not sure whether the Rangers would count as such, or whether they would fall into some other category like the Paras, RM Commandos, or a halfway house like the SRR.

[Mikey]

It's not great things that we expect - it's basic competence.

That sentence hinged on the use of "expect," which was supplied by your post. You can substitute "fairy cloud castles" for "great things" and the meaning is exactly the same.

Asking for a house and not getting the precise layout envisaged is one thing. Iraq was the equivalent of asking for a house and getting a hole in the ground in the middle of a patch of nettles to s**t in.

Perhaps. But in the absence of the U.S.' actions - even poorly-planned ones - what exactly would Germany have done? Or France? Or the UKoGBaNI? Or... ?

Exactly - sweet F.A. is what would have been done had the U.S done nothing.

The Green Berets are US Army Special Forces. All the rest are special forces in terms of their role rather than their precise name. I'm not sure whether the Rangers would count as such, or whether they would fall into some other category like the Paras, RM Commandos, or a halfway house like the SRR.

Special Forces refers to what the Green Berets do, as opposed to what all those special operations groups do. There's a reason we use a different term for direct-action intervention forces like the SEALs, Rangers, etc., from that used by the Green Berets; the reason being that they do different things. They are NOT special forces in terms of their role, because their role is different from that of Special Forces.

[Mikey]

Ah, I think I see the issue with the naming convention here. I have no idea how you guys categorize your SAS, SBS, RM Commandos, et. al. Over here, it works like this: each branch has one or more SOF - Special Operations Forces. These include PsyOps, Army Rangers, Navy SEAL's, Airborne regiments, etc. Special Forces is a term used for units which have a primary role - rather than direct intervention - of going to ground and organizing, equipping, and training native forces naturally hostile to the U.S.' stated enemy entity; e.g., the Green Berets. While such Special Forces will most certainly fall under the umbra of SOCOM, it certainly doesn't mean that all SOF are SF.