Latest: UN 'to back anti-Gaddafi action'

[AD-15]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12779628

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

Is that before or after all our Tornadoes are retired??

[oolon]

I think we are starting to see the start of the French/British millary cameron proposed. Guess atleast the tornadoes are expendable.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I think we are starting to see the start of the French/British millary cameron proposed. Guess atleast the tornadoes are expendable.

Why should we be sending our aircraft?? Why can't some Middle Eastern countries do so??

[jim]

I really wish it was the Saudis and the UAE that were doing this, not Britain. What on earth does it have to do with us?

[Saracen]

Updating the link in the OP, is http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12781009

The UN voted 10-0 to take steps, up to "all necessary measures" short of invasion to "to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas".

So, presumably, no boots on the ground, but I'd hate to be driving a Libyan tank if the A-10 (etc) start doing to ground armour what they did to Iraq's armour. And if they can keep planes and helicopters and on the ground, and prevent tanks or artillery from shelling Benghazi, it'll be a step in the right direction, i.e. hopefully preventing a civilian massacre.

My only concern would be ultimately, whether that can be done without boots on the ground. If there are boots, it'd be far, FAR better if they were neighbouring boots (like Egyptian, etc) and emphatically not Western boots. and most definitely not US or UK boots.

But at least this time, unlike Iraq, this action seems to have widespread support, including from many countries (and organisations of countries) in the region.

I guess it reflects one thing very clearly .... the mad Colonel is about as popular with his neighbours as he is with the West, and they're grabbing what was a fading chance to get rid of him, once and for all.

[IronWarrior]

We shouldn't be having anything to do with this civil war, Gaddafi has every right as an leader to put down the rebals and put the country back under government control.

I don't have a problem with going to War but only when the reasons are made clear and the only reason our governments are doing something about this is because they have lots of OIL while pretending to "protect the poor people" who have stolen government miliatry equipment and traitor army units taking up arms against their rightful leader.

I wonder what people would say if the UN or some other country proposed a no fly zone over our own countries because they didn't agree on whatever that sovereign country is doing or done.

[Saracen]

Oh, and being a cynic, I have to wonder if this has been a bit of a set-up.

First, some Western leaders (yes, Cameron, I mean you) talk tough. And the US knocks back the idea. While this has been going on, Gaddafi sat on his hands.

Then, it looks like no consensus for a no-fly zone exists, and the US poo-poo's the whole idea, while Obama himself is pretty conspicuous by his absence and a deafening silence. So as the international bigwigs apparently amuse themselves by chasing their tails and signally failing to agree on anything more meaningful than the dinner menu, Gaddafi sits, watches and thinks.

So, Gaddafi thinks .... "AHA!!!", no real UN or NATO pressure, just the usual rhetoric, time to get nasty on the ground, so he sends in the bully boys.

Cynics like me then wonder if, just perhaps, the international lack of concensus was just the bait needed for Gaddafi to take positive action, and if so, they got him hook, line and sinker. If they actually suckered him into giving exactly the signals needed to goad the neighbouring countries into calling for action, and to put adequate pressure on the likes of Russia and China to get them to back off of actually vetoing invention, and merely abstaining instead.

I almost have to wonder if there's some planning group in a CIA bunker somewhere that thought the psychology of this and came up with exactly the set of circumstances that would prod Gaddafi to do something reckless enough to get the Arab League, the Gulf Cooperation Council (Cooperation Council for the Arab States of the Gulf) etc to not only back this measure but to actively call for it. Because now, rather than it being obviously an agenda originating in London or Washington, rather than it being the usual "colonialist" bullying, it's the military big boys giving the local mob the muscle to do what needs to be done.

I sincerely hope this somewhat whimsical speculation is what truly happened, because if not, the alternative is that the UN is the usual SNAFU and the major powers of the planet have given a masterclass demonstration of how to go about not being able to organise a bonk in a knocking shop.

[roachcoach]

I think they were just way more standoffish due to previous disasters in the area.

It's easy for various groups to sit and criticise if they know action will happen anyway but if its clear (as was the case this time) nothing is happening unless they weigh in well it may have changed things.

I still don't see why the UK needs to get embroiled in another foreign conflict. Let the locals sort it out, or, if they cannot then they can bloody well make a costs contribution.

Yes yes, before anyone gets upset about the civilian cost, the UK isn't the world police, its not just our job.

[kalniel]

Saracen, I don't know. Part of me thinks there was some nervousness over the outcome and retribution from Gaddafi. The US is the country most affected economically from instability in the region, so one view might be they played safe to make it seem like they weren't initiators of action.

Yes yes, before anyone gets upset about the civilian cost, the UK isn't the world police, its not just our job.

Just like it's not our job to send £billions of aid to poor countries and provide humanitarian assistance? This is a bigger question, but is failing to act to prevent suffering hypocritical and inefficient when you're willing to act to alleviate suffering after it's happened?

[roachcoach]

It's not as simple as that. This will go to rat****, mark my words. It's not going to stop at a no fly zone, absolutely no chance. The odds of foreign occupation not actually happening I'd say are about....50:1, maybe worse.

All countries clamouring for this should be equally mandated to provide forces. I realise that other counties are providing logistic support etc, but that's not going to make the media, what we'll see is a bunch of western warplanes blowing the **** out of Arab troops. All the local neighbouring states that are asking for this to go through - why are those countries military forces not leading the charge? Given the history in that region of our interference, it would be politically for more attractive, eliminate allegations of imperialism/crusaders/oil grabs. And when/if it does all deteriorate, you have an international force in there not made up exclusively of a bunch of nations gagging for the oil. The neighbouring countries are quick to make alliances and leagues of this that and the other, but awfully slow about actually doing anything to help their fellows.

(Plus the hypocrisy of it makes me sick, perhaps had the Sudanese poured some black paint on the ground and called it oil we'd have been as insistent to help them too rather than sitting back hand wringing. But I digress)

Perhaps I'm just tired and cynical, but I'd just like to see an international resolution actually be enforced with relatively equal international contribution. right now it's like 10 guys our for a meal all ordering prime steak and expecting 2-3 guys to pay for the lot.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

The RAF is retiring aircraft rapidly to cut costs. The Tornado fleet is probably going to be retired early and the entire burden of combat operations is going to be placed on the 160 Eurofighters we are buying. But it seems even out of these 160 we will probably be selling a few and many won't be fully updated to the final avionics standard due to cost cutting. The F35 also is probably going to bought in smaller numbers due to budget cuts.

These aircraft will probably be in service for a very long time too.

OTH,look at the Royal Saudi Air Force which has 300+ modern combat aircraft mostly made up of Tornadoes,Typhoons and F15s. The RSAF has 5 E3 AWACs and 8 KE3A tanker aircraft. They are also buying 6 A330 MRTT aircraft which can also be used as tankers. The UAE air force has 150 modern combat aircraft which comprises only F16 Block 60 and Mirage 2000-9 aircraft.

The Block 60 F16 has AESA radars which even the RAF Typhoons don't have ATM.

Why are we endangering our pilots and using our diminishing number of combat aircraft??

Even two of the Middle Eastern airforces have 400+ modern combat aircraft and have plenty of money too.

[roachcoach]

^^ and that, that too.

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

It seems that Qatar will be providing support it seems. I wonder if that will include combat aircraft as they have 12 Mirage 2000-5 fighters.

The Egyptian air force has 400+ combat aircraft including 240 F16C and F16D aircraft and the Algerian air force has over 100 combat aircraft including Mig29,Su24 and Su30 aircraft.

[roachcoach]

I sure hope so, the more nations involved and communicating with one another, the higher chance of the politics and after effects to be much smoother.

Perversely, if it goes well, it may rebuilt some political bridges if a combined effort works well

[CAT-THE-FIFTH]

I still don't understand why we have to be sending our combat aircraft for a police action which the Middle Eastern air forces can handle themselves.

FFS,four Middle Eastern air forces including two neighbours of Libya have at least 800 modern combat aircraft comprising:
1.)319 F16 fighters including Block 50 and Block 60 versions.
2.)at least 237 F15 fighters
3.)86 Mirage 2000 fighters
4.)111 Tornadoes
5.)24 Typhoons
6.)69 Mig29 fighters
7.)44 Su24 attack aircraft
8.)28 Su30 fighters
9.)5 K3 and 8 E2C AWAC aircraft
10.)8 KE3A tanker aircraft