Egypt & Libya

[mockney piers]

Not about Libya but about Iran this time.

Shifts in the political fabric go counter to the middle east trends and may yet spark further opposition to the regime.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/03/08/the_shark_stops_swimming?page=0,0

[david_carnell]

So....a UN resolution has been passed and US, UK, French and Arab nations will work together to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to help protect civilians.

Gadaffi is already closing in on Benghazi and is bombing the city so things must move very quickly to be successful.

Could this be a foreign policy triumph for Cameron? Leading the international community and ensuring cooperation to overthrow a dictator without putting troops on the ground.

I have concerns over military overstretch however. Tornados and Typhoons have been committed whereas Harriers off a aircraft carrier would have been perfect had they not been scrapped. I suspect planed will launch from Cyprus but the logistics are frightening.

[????]

...and now this breaking

...so if the world had listened to Cameron earlier less deaths etc...looks likeche was right on this.

Now, probably an unresolved stalemate.

Obahma has looked weak and useless on this. Style over substance big time methinks

[Marmora Man]

There's just one problem - it will be very very difficult to UK to take more than a token part in the no fly zone patrols given the recent SDSR decisions.

A working aircraft carrier and squadron of Harriers would be a huge asset right now - but one was paid off last week and the Harrier pilots given notice a few weeks earlier.

I voted for D Cameron and still applaud his economic analysis and programme - but he has yet to join up the country's foreign and defence policy properly.

[Jeremy]

Maybe it's just me... but my interpretation of enforcing a no-fly-zone didn't involve missile strikes. And it seems that they're not just targetting anti-aircraft facilities.

I've got a nasty feeling about this one.

[Loz]

I knew it involved some missile strikes to take out anti-aircraft defences, but it does seem like they are taking the opportunity to weak Gadaffi. They risk losing the important support of the Arab League. Lose that and it's back to being a West vs Arab/Muslim conflict, which would be v. bad for overall peace in the region.

[Marmora Man]

The UN resolution wasn't just about "no fly" it was about preventing Gaddafi from prosecuting reprisals on Benghazi and the opposition and thus requires the targeting of more Thant just anti aircraft batteries.

PS: A no fly zone always involves missiles a d attacks on anti aircraft installations - these include radar sites, surface to air missile sites and military HQs. Otherwise your own aircraft are too vulnerable.

[aspidistra]

Or even, to weaken.

I don't see what they are doing as outside the UN resolution.

Arab League: key.

[DJKillaQueen]

A no fly zone is just a direct attempt to level the playing field between Gaddafi's forces and the 'rebels' which is a bit like playing referee really whilst they fight it out. That's fine until Gadaffi starts getting the upper hand on the ground and then what? It's obvious that any kind of intervention is at least hoping for the downfall of Gadaffi.....but to be replaced by what or whom....THAT is where the UN, USA and so on go coc k-up in these matters.

Do we run the danger of being drawn into yet another middle-eastern fiasco, to protect what this time? The Suez canal? More dwindling oil supplies?

Totally agree that the Arab League are key.

[MitchK]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Maybe it's just me... but my interpretation of

> enforcing a no-fly-zone didn't involve missile

> strikes. And it seems that they're not just

> targetting anti-aircraft facilities.

>

Yes I thought they just dropped a few copies of the Guardian on Libya and they would all become good democrats.

This intervention is absolutely crazy. No fly zones are aren't enough on there own, you always end up having to send in the ground troops but no one has the balls for that in case we risk upsetting our Arab friends.

Let them fight it out and tell Cameron to stop watching Sky News. Anyway, why do we care who runs Libya? Just flog us your oil and don't come over here.

[Jeremy]

This is most definitely more than just the enforcement of a no-fly zone, they are also attacking Libya's ground forces. It's a blatant attempt to pave the way for a coup.

What happens then?

[Loz]

You install a puppet government, of course.

[david_carnell]

Jeremy

I'd dispute it is necessarily "more" than a NFZ. If you don't destroy ground forces and anti-aircraft installations (radar stations, artillery etc) then you leave your air forces vulnerable.

Rumours persist of enforcing a retreat of Gadaffi's forces far enough west to allow for some sort of peaceful partition inc. the establishment of a "free" Libya.

[Jeremy]

Anti-aircraft installations, yes. But ground forces? Tanks can't shoot at planes.

Time will tell if the Libyans end up with a peaceful partition, or living in chaos without effective leadership.

[aspidistra]

The Arab World's Next Battle

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/22/water-the-next-arab-battle