Several interesting commenters
have crept up to our blog's campfire in recent days, joining our intimate
little band (wow, did see those two going
at in in the My Lai item?)
One of the newcomers, a perp
self-identifying as "Jonny," got this advice from an old-timer around
the cell block, "Don Bacon":
France
doesn't seem reluctant, except in actually doing anything.
Nicolas
Sarkozy has called for air strikes on Libya. It is less than 800 miles from
Toulon to Tripoli, and yet France with its enormous military infrastructure is
incapable of striking Tripoli? France needs the U.S. to do it? I wonder why?
Now,
I know am at odds with many of the little grasshoppers, who want to stay far
away from Libya. Still, whatever you advocate doing there, it is an interesting
question: If France wants to do something, why not do something, Jacques? What
are you waiting for?
Monsieur
Tyrtaios, wanna handle this? Any other friends of la
France out there who wanna step up?
As I have said, Sarco likes to throw stuff out to present himself as a world leader, but alas, like his domestic rhetoric, he either doesn't grasp or care, that the political capital to do so doesn't exist for him.
France, as former colonial power, with business interest in Libya, never really wanted to enforce a no-fly zone unilaterally, because they knew it would eventually entail bombing Libyan ground installations which could be a propaganda gift to Kaddafi, who would certainly invoke Libyan patriotism that might unite those within the tribes, now sitting on the fence post.
Besides, the Frogs, like us Yankees, know that sometimes things from the air, while moving fast and looking down, look different than the reality of the situation down there. Conversely, planes are planes, and fair game to the untrained on the ground that might have buck favor, and one must have people on the ground to oversee the wogs.
However, there is another crazy former lieutenant colonel in France who's all flat out for it, my Father-in-law, but in the spirit of Marquis de Lafayette, he feels it should be a joint adventure. : )
I won't deny there might be less than glorious reasons for France, if/when time comes to send planes, to be reluctant to do so - we shall see. But shouldn't a country that supports a no-fly-zone or any other type of military action against Libya first secure legal authority from the UN Security Council? It's not just a CYA matter, it's the difference between war of aggression and legal intervention, isn't it? Not a trivial difference.
there are all signs that France will participate (and even in the case of a veto, will strike unilaterally with the UK)
1) in the current Southern Mistral operations Tornados and Mirages are currently training lond distance bombing missions (1500 km). The distance between Corsica and Tripoli is 1000km. I heard the sonic bangs over my house yesterday. Training involves dry runs with AASM bombs and Storm Shadow
2) Currently based in Solenzara are 3 Rafale,6 Mirage 2000 D, 4 Mirage 2000 N, 3 Mirage 2000 C,3 F1 CR. in operation serpentex 2011. They can hit Tripoli in 30 min. Been training on similar missions.
3) the story of Sarkozy money is of course bull. BELTWAYCYNIC has of course not the slightest idea how presidential campaigns are financed in France. Hint : not like in the US.
4) France has'nt been a colonial power in Lybia
5) FYI France already stroke Libya 1986 with Jaguar Sepecats and Mirages at Wadi Dum anr twarted a Libyan invasion of Chad.
I see a lot of prejudiced (as usual) anti-French rethoric.
If there is a green light at the SC this evening, expect a strike in the following hours.
France was a colonial power in the region, albeit not Libya, but would seem to want to move with caution without being invited there, other than by a non-U.N. recognized group, if for no other reason than not to be seen as an ex-colonial power intent on reestablishing a modicum of its former self.
It will be interesting to see if in fact the French attack ground targets soon, as I can't fathom how they might distinguish friend from foe without introducing a footprint on the ground first. Naturally, as one such as yourself who has heard sonic booms, it would be logical to assume there are rehearsals going-on, but good rehearsals usually are done over similar terrain, and perhaps this is just posturing?
However, I have been wrong before, where others were right.
Of course the crazy colonel stating Sarco has taken campaign money is ridiculous, unsubstantiated, and seems illogical that if true, wouldn‘t have been uncovered long ago, but it is amusing to read about and adds color to the drama, especially when Kadaffi calls his good friend Sarco crazy! : )
the French will be able to rely on constant Arab League support, so the effort won't be unilateral. If there is one thing that Western powers can count on it is that Arab leaders are plain-spoken, plain-dealing and altruistic to a fault.
I'm saying all this in the event that (Lord, keep what I am about to say from the Devil's ears) the Security Council votes against a No-fly zone.
And I know basically nothing about Libya. My hunch is that if Gadaffi falls, then even if whatever comes next is as bad (possibly even slightly worse) it represents progress of a sort. Not the kind of progress to invest much in, but if the opportunity presents itself to tip the scales against the colorful drama queen (in a deep place, we really will miss him in a way) then it would be nice to make it happen. That sounds like weak encouragement, doesn't it? Well, yeah that's the point.
That said, I see no need or particular benefit for any, much less significant, overt US involvement. Preferably, the Arab League wants help, the UN SC authorizes it, friends and neighbors do the deed under that banner. Freedom wins the day and someone else gets a turn at the wheel, whoever that may be.
I don't know who represents what or what sort of contact we have with them, but I suspect it was a lot easier to say "we don't want your help" a week or more ago before they started getting their asses handed to them.
Wow, a french and a spanish discusssing Lybia in a yankee blog!!
Again, I apologise for my english in advance.
From my point of view, the key point is whether SC provides thelegal basis for an intervention. I believe such an intervention should be european - led even though I don´t imagine our Air Force attacking nobody right now.
Anyhow, I have a quiestion for FRENCHCONNECTION (a film which starred Fernando Rey, born in my town of La Coruña): From my knowledge, french interest in Magreb is really strong (Marocco, Algeria, Chad, Mali, etc). How does an intervention in Lybia fit in french politics for Northern Africa and the mediterranean?
From our point of view, our problem is Morocco, where king Mohamed VI has anounced a constitutional reform program.
One would think this was Italy's problem since they have the closest connection with Libya past, and presently economically, and are, or were, paying Kaddafi reparations for their former occupation, where in return, the crazy colonel holds his thumb down on Libyan’s who might illegally try to immigrate over to the Boot.
Why aren’t we calling Rome to take the lead?
But then having been in Italy and looked endlessly at piles of rubble with signs stating they were Roman ruins, reminds me why I always ended up back at the bar early.
When it comes to buffoonery, clownishness, idiocy, pompousness and downright arrogance, who gets y'alls' votes: Sarkozy (aka le Nez) or Berlusconi (aka Buck Naked: Porn Star)?
Former US presidents, national security advisers, deputy AGs and cabinet secretaries who served between 2001 and 2009 are ineligible for consideration.
I claim no special knowledge, but the French did join with the US bombing of Syrian positions in Lebanon. I've read that they were miffed at Weinburger's on-again-off-again dithering, cancelling joint missions after French strike planes were launched. They also put men ashore during our unhappy time in Beirut, no?
French legionaires must have been involved in fighting against Kadaffy's adventure in Chad, and at the very least enjoyed US technical and sat-intel support. Going back a bit further, the Anglo-French-Israeli assault on Nassar's Suez in 1956 is supportive of a pugilistic view to their national character.
France still maintains some naval carrier-strike capability, which is pretty unique, if of questionable efficacy. But their stand-off anti-shipping missiles have been effective against US and Brit naval targets. That indicates sufficient depth in the missile and electronic countermeasures areas to at least make life difficult for Tripoli air ops.
With a huge population of N. African immigrants today, which must be infiltrated by Kaddaffy's opposition-watchers, France would need broad int'l support to put planes or covert legionaire's in against Tripoli. The Saudi's and the US are the big votes I should think, although one should never underestimate those tricky and oil-savvy Brits.
I'm not convinced that Benghazi is in imminent danger from Kadaffy's planes or tanks. Cities swallow armies, and provide defensive cover. The Tripoli forces are operating a long way from home, on a campaign trail famous for combined arms offensives running out of steam and suffering reversals. The oil money isn't flowing, refineries not working, and free-spending Tripoli's int'l credit isn't any good, despite their current gains along the coast road.
A long war is a losing war, for an oil oligarchy cut off from revenue.
If some Egyptian (or even Tunisian) stores of SAM-7 and anti-armor rockets were to somehow find their way to the front, or flank the advancing column's exposed fuel supply, all the arms Tripoli sent West could be lost, just as rapidly as ground was 'retaken.'
"With a huge population of N. African immigrants today, which must be infiltrated by Kaddaffy's opposition-watchers, France would need broad int'l support to put planes or covert legionaire's in against Tripoli. The Saudi's and the US are the big votes I should think, although one should never underestimate those tricky and oil-savvy Brits."
The French, Italians, British and probably the Spanish have huge populations of North African Muslim immigrants relative to their native populations. Especially in France, relations between Muslims and the government are quite poor. FP documented how Qadaffi extorted money from the Italians for years by promising to keep illegal immigrants from reaching Italy. Any European military adventurism in Libya must then take into account the inevitable blowback from their resident Muslims when the inevitable civilians are inevitably killed by the inevitable poorly placed bombs and missiles from French/Italian aircraft.
Now, are the Franks, Gauls, Lombards, Vandals and Romans about to invoke the NATO charter to get us to play with them?
Don't know your background, but as a linguist I work with a wide variety of English-as-a-second-language speakers. Sometimes, their mistakes are just too cool to correct.
I was going to jump in to say how much I too would like to be 'stroked by a Jaguar Sepecat in a Wadi'.
I am already over-invested in NCAA Tourney but if you start the French Strike pool I'm read to double-down. I think we've already established that French have the capability, how about the intent? The fact that the are TRAINING is probably not particularly relevant. That is what forces do, they train. Have the canceled all "French Leave"?
The Security Council is unlikely to act, the Arab League figleaf is pretty small to hide behind, that might be as good as it gets. They need more from AL than a call for No Fly, they might be able to strike at 1000KM but they are going to have a hard time maintaining CAP at 1000 KM.
Don't be petty. We were discussing unilateral action, and the U.N. resolution says no-fly zone, whatever that entails. How’s French aviation’s tanker fleet, or are they going to suck on our nozzles. However, I’m happy to have them on board.
I'm also rather new to this blog, as a commenter anyway, although I've been reading for a while. Without wanting to get into my personal opinion about a no-fly zone in Libya, I do have some thoughts about the reason why France does not intervene. And the main one, I think, has already been mentioned above:
"It is less than 800 miles from Toulon to Tripoli"
That's right. When you are in France, Libya is not really all that far away.
And from that point of view, I can very much understand why France would hesitate to enter into a war without UN support, or without any European support. Well, except for maybe the UK, and I wonder, why not ask the same question about them? Compared to the US, London isn't that much farther away from Tripoli than Paris, and the UK certainly has the military power to wage its own war on Tripoli.
So, one reason why they hesitate is probably that they don't want a war without the support of the international community on their hands.
The other reason is maybe that France, and the UK, see that a no-fly zone above Libya would mean not only risking innocent lives (it's a fact that you cannot just create a no-fly zone without first destroying/seriously harming Libyan air force, which would most likely involve at least some civilian victims), but would also mean empowering rebels that we really do not know much about. Who are these people who are fighting against the Libyan government right now? What are their goals? Does helping them really help the Libyan people?
Those are the questions that are being discussed in European papers at the moment, at least.
No, actually helping the Libyan people would involve fighting a "real" war, not only establishing a no-fly zone, but actually going into the country, cutting off the current government and establishing a new system there. A process that takes time, costs TONS of money and, as examples in the more and less recent past have shown, is often crowned with dubious success. It isn't an endeavor that a country like France would undertake all by herself. Although I doubt that Monsieur Sarkozy has thought quite that far ahead when he called for a no-fly zone. IMHO that was just another small man wanting to finally try out his (military) toys for real.
And, here's one last piece for thought from me: maybe Europe is so hesitant to move forward on a no-fly zone because we doubt somehow that, if push comes to shove, the US would be capable of helping us out - what with the US military currently being caught up in not one, but two wars that do not seem to end anytime soon.
Just a thought, of course.
(I apologize for any sarcasm and for being mean to M. Sarkozy. I truly love France, but I have a tendency to argue, and, well, to be mean to small men with too much power on their hands. Sorry about that.)
FRENCHCONNECTION, thanks for the reminder that Americans aren't the only ones who suck at OPSEC. If you fly the Tricolor at home, you might want to watch what kind of order of battle information you post.
One more reason for us (USA!) to stay the hell out of this mess.
this is open source material, most of it stands on the French DOD site. And what doesn't stand there is only marginally known.
the Libyans are not stupid, they can read and probably access more stuff than I can
but they can do nothing at a SCALP EG, an AASM or French ECM
They couldn't stop old Jaguars flying 10 m above the ground, they couldn't stop the US raid same year even when directly warned by some Maltese asshole by phone. They just flew away in panic
actually the real problem isn't the abilities of Lybian "intelligence" , the problem (shown by several posts above) is that many Americans still believe that the French or the Brits still fight with swords and horses.
I thought you were telling me that France had struck Libya big guy! You almost had me going!?!?!?
I am a strong believer in the UN, it is a good place to deplore, Strongly Deplore the way the World is. I would like to take this opportunity to strongly deplore the events in Libya. I think JFK was probably talking about the UN when he said: "Some people see the World as it is and ask why?"
So what is big Nic going to do now? This is his big chance he has the green light: go, go,go! There is still no requirement for US to carry water for UN. I recommend we carefully calibrate our response so we do as much as Russia or Brazil.
Aieee, hoka hey! It appears the U.N. has voted to approve a no-fly zone over Libya. The crux of the argument has been the use of the word unilateral, whether from the U.S. or France, and this is now a moot point.
However, I must wait to see if no-fly means provoke a response from Kadafi to justify air attacks on ground targets also, which I still believe involves some foot print on the ground.
We're just assuming a No Fly is going to cause the COL to lose and create an endstate? Why?
Here is the "wargame":
-West Implements No Fly Zone (this is act of war) in Operation Camel's Head
-Rebels continue to Lose (panic ensues in Benghazi, Paris and Washington)
-West has to do MORE to prevent losing (everybody hates a loser) Air Strikes against COLs only reliable ground forces result in regime collapsing
-Chaos continues in streets, score settling, tribes, clans, warfare
-UN Calls for stabilization force
That is as much time as the S2 had to play, what happens next?
Define the problem: (lack of) stability is the problem. We have no plan to get there from here.
What was Vizini the Dwarf's warning about betting against Siciliansin matters of lief and death?
The passage of the UNSC resolution, a deal requiring passive acceptance by China and Roosha, has US fingerprints all over it. IMO.
---
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/17/libya-nofly-italy-idUSLDE72G2HE20110317
snip>
The airbase at Sigonella in Sicily, which provides logistical support for the United States Sixth Fleet, is one of the closest NATO bases to Libya and could be used in any military operation.
"It's a positive development," an Italian goverrnment source told Reuters minutes after the U.N. Security Council voted in favour of the no-fly zone.
Asked whether Italy would offer its bases for the enforcement of the U.N. resolution, the source said: "Yes, we've said we are ready to do that."
Like Oceana, I am pretty new to commenting, so I apologize if I do things wrong. However, it appears to me that the discussion has underestimated how difficult a unilateral French air campaign would be. While the French could certainly do something, it seems to me that for multiple reasons it would be difficult, risky, and likely ineffective.
First, the assets France could bring immedeatly are rather limited. FrenchConnection listed only between 12 and 19 usable fighters on Corsica (the lower number discounts the Mirage 2000N's, possibly useless for non-nuclear strikes and the F-1s, possibly out of range). Even if we assume the Charles de Gaulle's airwing (max 35) is available, and there are more squadrons stationed or recently deployed to Southern France, I would guess that there are only about one hundred strike aircraft available. By comparison, by the end of Allied Force, around a thousand aircraft (all types) were deployed, and NATO was flying 700 sorties a day.
Second, while well within striking distance of Libya, the distances aren't trivial. French fighters would probably be operating at least 2/3 of their unrefueled combat radius away. This would both limit ordinance carried, as they would need to carry drop-tanks, and would limit time-over target. While aerial refueling would significantly help, France only has 14 KC-135s. I have no idea on how sufficient this would be, but does seem rather limited to support a major air campaign, especially if some are stationed elsewhere in France. Thus, enforcement of a no-fly zone or strikes against mobile ground forces may be very difficult.
Finally, preparing for a major air campaign takes time for gathering intelligence, mission planning, and logistical preperation to make sure there is enough fuel and ordinance available.
Because of these difficulties, France likely was limited to a small number of strikes against static targets in Tripoli. Given that Gaddafi is essentially fighting for his life, I can't see such strikes having any appreciable impact, and can fully understand why Sarkozy would choose to wait for a UN resolution and participate in a multilateral operation rather than going it alone.
My analysis could certainly be wrong. However, I think these are important points to consider before condemning Sarkozy for failing to do anything so far. I hope this helps.
There´s been a lot of posts about the disadvantages of attacking from french bases. How about using Italy´s Aviano, which was used back in NATO operation against Serbia? This would allow our italian allies to participate in the operation also, so Berlusconi could appear in TV with something else to talk about than Ruby.
Do not forget Sigonella, it's closer to the fray, but Aviano is a good call too. It will be interesting to see if Egypt will allow NATO to rent space. I would, and monitor how NATO (said: U.S./Brit/France) do things for my own future nefarious air ops.
Off topic, but what's the scoop on Spanish rider Alberto Contador?
I am not a cycling insider but I`ll do my best to summarize what has been published so far.
All started when minimum traces of clenbuterol were found in an anti - doping blood test, conducted during the Pyrenees section of last Tour de France. I also believe that some kind of plastic molecules were found, too. This led to Contador being under investigation and suspended from competition.
There were a lot of arguments from both sides. The accusing side said those clenbuterol traces and the plastic molecules hinted to a blood self transfussion (does that word exist in english? What they said is that allegedly Contador had some blood extracted off season so that blood could be treated with some type of enhanced performing drugs. Then, in racing season, Contador would have his treated blood again injected in his veins). On the other side, Contador explained that clenbuterol should have come from a steak he had for dinner the day before he was tested (BTW, sparking a somehow ridiculous argument with the basque cattle growing people who sold the steak to his assistant).
Finally, Spain´s National Cycling Federation conducted an investigation and declared Contador innocent, so he could ride again. Anyway, international cycling federation might not agree to the spanish decision, so another investigation would take place, this time out of Spain.
Nobody wants the US to attack Libya but the US. You are like a bully who's walking up to every table asking "What? What? What?" as if anybody was calling him.
Remember: nobody asked the US to intervene, they are not world police anymore, so stop acting as if this "huge burden" would rest on your shoulders. The world can - and will! - manage without idiotic cowboys invading every other country just fine.
Give this one to the French. They don't tend to be as addicted to sucker plays by neocons, Al Qaeda and whoever else, at home or abroad, draws upon the quick depletion of American riches and power. Viva la France. This is the act of a good ally.
Read More
(38)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE