About Time for the UK-French Entente to Apply Decisive Force Against Quaddafi

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by NathanHale, Apr 27, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. mmmmmmmmmmmmmm
  2. The grown ups will awaken shortly with more informed responses, but even if we could/should scrape together a UK ground contribution of a Division(-), who is going to pay for it?

    Futhermore the armour isn't going to be much use in Tripoli so by your calculations that leaves 8 infantry battalions to take a city of over 1 million souls. Assuming that such a super human performance was possible - and drawing on the model of Baghdad - what then?

    It was my understanding that the 'light footprint' approach of Rumsfeld had been totally discredited and applying the rule of 'you broke it, you own it', the UK+ have neither the will nor the resources to commit to such an operation.

    If ground troops were going to be used I'd suggest that landing around Misratah and going the other way to Benghazi (where they embark and foxtrot oscar) would be more sensible, allowing the rebels to advance and cut off the enclave of Tripoli. G's conventional forces would get a good kicking, he loses all access to oil revenue and no EU green army remains on the ground to be stuck in a counter insurgency nightmare.
  3. mmmmmmmmmmm
  4. Personally I'm in favour of a 'Nathan Hale' job on the brace of Pillocks who committed Forces to this task.

  5. mmmmmmmmmmmmm
  6. I assume ya feeling lonely as you where the only arrser not invited to the wedding.
    Upstringing, we hung a Traitor to his Lawful King, there was no USA just Rebel colonies and he was dealt with iaw the Law of that Day.

  7. Is this the same Nathan Hale that was hung by the British in 1776 for acts of espionage?
  8. Short answer Mr Hale is, ehm no we can't. Following adventures in Iraq and Afghanistan the UK presently does not possess the political will (nor the military capability it had 6 months ago) for such an expedition.
  9. Well if the Arab League or African Union don't want to do it, why should we? Oh, and we probably can't anyway unless we withdraw combat units from Afghanistan first.

    Bet that'd go down well.

    Oh, this is what a short post looks like, Mr Hale. I didn't even copy & paste things from other websites.

    Hint hint.
  10. Unless the european oil majors start throwing their weight around I'd expect this thankless humanitarian intervention to move slowly. There'll probably be an awful lot of legal nit picking, arse scratching and attempts to shift the burden before any serious action happens. It'll be a little embarrassing but NATO is used to that.

    The Pentagon and Barry's electorate for his shaky second term has sod all interest in the very peripheral Libya beyond conserving their tax dollars. With Cairo tilting towards Hamas, Syria and Bahrain in turmoil DC's eyes will be on their rapidly collapsing wider ME strategy.

    Dave just wants costs kept low and (like his electorate) for someone else to do the heavy lifting. He could be hoping to get lucky with a smart bomb well into 2012.

    That leaves Sarko, he's made the running on this one. After a corrupt reign he's the least popular French President ever but not up for election for nearly a year. He has had the strongest approval over the Libyan intervention of any of the NATO leaders, in the mid sixties. I'd expect he'll be playing to Le Pen's base and grandstanding on this and other efforts against immigration all summer. The French like a bit of towel head hammering, but really aren't much moved by a few thousand extra dead arabs. They go torpid around August. Provided the cost are kept fairly low and the rebels suffer just steady attrition rather than an embarrassing Hama type defeat it might suit him to wait till autumn to administer a coup de grâce with ground troops.
  11. Could we? Technically, probably yes, if it was in our urgent national interest, and someone was paying for it.

    Should we? Definitely no. Just on the principle that whilst poking about in other state's internal affairs to effect regime change and get rid of nasty people we don't like is tempting;

    (a) it's against international law for good reasons. Where do you draw the line? Shall we invade Italy to get rid of Berlusconi? What if Britain elects Milliboy next - should the French and Americans invade to get control of the last of our oil?

    (b) such exploits usually bring more grief than they are worth. Vide Iraq and Afghanistan.

    As a rule I believe war is such an expensive (cash and human terms) act that is usually the worst solution to any problem. Invading Iraq and Afghan were not the best way to deal with the threat of Al Quaeda. In essence they have been counter-productive, making it easier to radicalise young Muslims by convincing them there is a war between the West and Islam. Putting a fraction of their cost into hearts and minds ops, intelligence, and very limited special ops would have achieved far more. Large scale warfare should be employed only when it is the only option available to defend ourselves.

    Otherwise, soldiers should be left to go on nice safe exercises and come home to drink tea in the mess {wink}

  12. Its becoming in our national interest to find a way to end the mess, otherwise we look increasingly stupid (or at least our politicians do) for starting a fight that we can't finish - and against a(nother) third world rabble.
  13. kkkkkkkkkkkk
  14. You can't just deploy infantry battalions without the requisite combat service support. Also, the UK doesn't really have the logistical capability to do it at the moment.

    We would have to withdraw almost completely from Afghanistan and then spend a few months gathering equipment and troops before we could deploy a force large enough to actually make it worthwhile. It's a sad state of affairs but it's the fault of politicians, not the men on the ground.