West Asia News and Discussions

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 22:03

^^^
Bji, everyone has misread the Arab street. And by abstaining India bought time to think and see how the situation develops. And at same time showed its not under any obligation to vote one way or the other to anyone. And the confluence of forces is such that India is in no position (without veto powers) to infleunce or add conditionalities to the UN resolution. And BTW those who think India should get permament seat without veto its useless prestige. And makes India do things not in own interests.

The wiki pees are motivated leaks to give an image on India as a poodle. I want to be blunt Indians do things as they want for their own reasons. People misread the motivations for the actions and get angry or pleasure based on their own reasons.

The consensus in the political and elite circles was to get the NSG regualtions out. BJP did not even try hard except to bolster the image that MMS had tough job.
And if some MPS make some money its ok for their retirement, for most of those guys never had chance to scam anyone.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2011 22:23

ramana ji,
in an internal debate connected to some political forces I took the position of supporting the nukonergy deal when people were preparing to get ready for sharking in and out of loksabha. I am still known as "secular" in those circles. But my position was based on the "compromise" between minimalist and maximalist position I mentioned above, and I clearly mentioned even in that internal meet about the cash aspect and still supported the deal. For me this was a temporary compromise and does not mean accepting the "cash" principle as a fundamental value. Moreover going into it was a clear calculated step realizing that both USA and India should be aware of the underlying game and that such moves are simply circumstantial convergence and not any permanent tie-ups.

It is not entirely meaningless to support a resolution where you are not that powerful to alter the course of events, or decisions, but you use the opportunity to put forward your own ideas and give veiled alternatives (as well as implied offers) that will sow the seeds of defection from the forces that now seem much stronger than you. This was what I meant by using the UN platform for. I will not go into veto/UNSC thingie here. Probably OT here, but I do think along what you stand for on this.

It was at the same meet I refer to above that I suggested thinking ahead on potential changes of regime in ME, but I was literally drowned out in laughter - as people kindly suggested that having gone abroad I had lost touch with reality of ME - which will stay like this forever at least for several generations (this from a person idolized as a visionary). Even on this forum, I have suggested before all this started that we make the mistake of thinking that the Islamic world will remain as they are now permanently, and that there will be no attempt at internal changes.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2011 22:28

Anyone smelling the beginnings of some kind of an effect of west Asia into Pak? Probably OT. But the same wind that blew holes against regimes that have fallen out with some specific western objectives as they stand now (temporarily - that is cutting losses and shedding individuals who are no longer useful), could actually find it useful to do it too in Pak. Ot perhaps.

ramana · Post by **ramana** » 18 Mar 2011 22:32

Its not OT. The US prespective is that TSP is linked to Afghania. However TSP thinks it Eastern Middle East. So changes in West Asia will have their own impacts on TSP. But it might take time as there is heavy effort on part of US to keep them stable.

More than this crisis, Rehman Dawood will have greater impact when they realize the TSPA is the one having them droned.

http://forums.bharat-rakshak.com/viewto ... 9#p1049299

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2011 22:38

I have had a whiff from people who work in the area (TSP-West-Asia-mediated by shadows originating from across the pond) about this. It is being considered as an option. Don't follow though how saving Raymond's skin will help start the process - or was that a heaven-sent opportunity that afforded itself or itself part of a bigger game plan? the current spate of demos are being probed for potential.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2011 22:46

Strikes could be directed at Gaddafi himself, and around Tripoli. No one is prepared to accept Gaddafi now in exile in their backyard (at least not in his neighbourhood). So he has to be eliminated on spot. It is not just surgical strikes against forces on the ground. But interestingly, out of all this - Arab rulers get weakened, and AQ types will get increased stature. As both authoritarians displaced, as well as Islmists on ground frustrated if not winning all power as a result of the uprisings - will turn to AQ types.

Things will change very very quickly it seems.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 18 Mar 2011 22:50

My earlier projection about things happening in the power base of Gaddafi himself, is supposed to be more likely now. Some parts of the circle around him could trigger something to save themselves. Or this could be part of a psy-ops deliberately meant for his family and close aides, that I am getting.

ManuT · Post by **ManuT** » 19 Mar 2011 01:06

I am for the removal Gadha-fi and certainly won't shed any tears for him or his sons. Whatever hope there is, it is in him not perpetuating, and therein lies the possibility of change. With his continuation things will be the same. It is possible that there might be another dictator but one cannot change the game without changing the players.

India at UN somehow talks a lot with feeble responses. If anything, I see Indian reps speech at the UN as babu-speak.

Replace Libya with Burma (with no oil) and I can see India's same response at a later date, sometime in the future, in it's backyard (and call it policy). If one wants to shape events one must move with speed. It seems GOI wanted to wait till of resistence had been bombed and allowing smug Gadha-fi claim that there is no opposition!

As already pointed out Gadha-fi babbled about making Kashmir independent a while back that should have cost him Indian neutrality, if there was any need for it.

---
Added Later: IMO, Kanishka bombing == Lockerbie bombing.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Mar 2011 03:05

Why Bahrain ruling Sunnis are not being threatened by same forces when street protests take violent route.Its ok to call Saudi forces to repress, I guess.The protesters are against the authorities while in rest of the places it is rebellion against despotic regime.. Seems interesting narrative from unkil point of view. Same with Yemen. Hosni was again a intriguing story, supporter of unkil , yet abandoned
by them since unkil was able to maintain military support after changeover.
Gadha fi certainly a mad man but do we have support among protesters or are the protesters funded by , motivated by and prodded upon by unkil only to further unkil interest.

Unless there is real democratic change through out Afro-Arab world including Saudis, not brought about by funding through unkil but true spontaneous actions,all this is only likely to strengthen AQ only.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 19 Mar 2011 05:10

^^
Iraq was a regime change, but a regime change difficult to implement without a military invasion. Witness the unsuccessful effort at change in the aftermath of the first Gulf War. The unintended side effect was also a change in leadership from Sunni to Shia and an enormous buildup of Islamic extremism against the West.

Tunisia and Egypt were internal uprisings which the West was not willing to stand in the way off i.e. to prop up Hosni Mubarak would mean a huge increase in the political/public capital of the West and a further corresponding increase in the build up of Islamic extremism. Especially given that Hosni Mubarak was going to bow out in favor of his son Gamal. i.e. a perpetuation of the Mubarak dynasty, bankrolled literally and via political capital by the West... a price to high to pay. Besides the current regime in any event will do what the West wants it too.

Libya is interesting aka another Saddam like dictator... strong and independent minded. So when the prevailing winds of change blew into Libya, the rebels were supported. Gadaffi is not as strong as Saddam was but nor is he as weak as Hosni was. Hence you have the a middle ground.. UN security council resolution...no fly zone...yada-yada. An outright Western military ground force will definitely help the Al-Qaeda recruiting effort. Interesting to see which Arab countries will participate in this effort.

Bahrain is in another category altogether. The eastern province of KSA which contains the bulk of KSA oil can and will never be compromised. Hence Bahrain will not be compromised. Therefore...lip service to human rights etc...but a free hand pretty much to handle the situation. The Bahraini economy will be in tatters, but GCC financial help will help somewhat to counteract the downside.

Given this big picture, from India's standpoint the Security Council absention on Libya was the best choice.

shyamd · Post by **shyamd** » 19 Mar 2011 05:26

My Blog post.

Libya No Fly Zone - The Plan Plus Update on Bahrain

Libya

Our readers will know that Middle East Analysis has been fairly accurate so far on the Libyan situation. We accurately predicted that Gaddafi would use his Air force decisively to win this war with the rebels unless a No Fly Zone was implemented.

The French military have been busy planning strikes in Libya as part of the No Fly Zone implementation.

Gaddafi's air assets - He has Mig 21's, Mig 23s,a number of Sukhoi 22's and Galib trainer aircraft armed with Air to Surface rockets that have been in use in current operations. All in all, Gaddafi has only 20 air planes that are in working conditions. Out of the 4 Mirages that he had, 2 were flown to Malta as pilots defected.

In addition to this, Gaddafi has a decent sized helicopter fleet, which are estimated to be around 40. These compromise Chinooks (which incidentally played a signifcant and decisive role in the recent offensive on rebel held cities) that were recently upgraded in Italy as well as a number of Russian attack helicopters. Many of the pilots appear to be from the Syrian Air Force (sent by Bashaar Al Assad as part of a long standing pact that is in place between the 2 countries).

The Plan - Our sources confirm to us that the plan is for Western air forces to destroy Gaddafi's Air Force fleet in the initial strikes. This is due to the importance of the aircraft in striking rebel positions in the last week. This would be key to establishing the no fly zone. The US generals early on had hinted that a No Fly Zone would also mean taking out Libyan Surface to Air Missile sites - this maybe a difficult part of establishing the No Fly Zone but is very much possible.

We speculate that UK would utilise bases in Cyprus and Sicily. The US appears to be interested in using Egyptian air bases to launch their raids. While the French will probably decide to deploy from the South of France which isn't too far from the Libyan cities.

News reports also sight 2 British Nimrod aircraft that were due to be scrapped this month have been pressed into service.

A crucial test for the coalition force would be to control and coordinate this operation as they have done in the past.

Future issues - Another worry in Washington is that Gaddafi has recruited mercenaries from tribes in Mali that are close to the AQIM area of operations. So the questions being asked is, what will happen once these tribal mercenaries return to their home in Mali with their weapons? Will they swell the AQIM (Al Qaeda in the Maghreb) ranks? As a result, there is a worry that the enitre North Africa may become destabilised. Washington has begun to meet closely with Algerian counter terror advisors, to consult and cooperate on these issues.

Bahrain - Muqtada Al Sadr and some shia groups are debating opening a front against the KSA or Kuwait in solidarity with Bahraini Shia.

These moves are under the assumption that the Saudi led Peninsula Shield Forces are there to put down any unrest. We strongly deny that the Saudi forces are there to deal with the protesters or conduct any sort of riot control.

The KSA led PSF force is there for 2 reasons:
1) Assurance to the Bahraini King, that the KSA will intervene only if the King feels there is a threat to his rule/monarchy.
2) Prevention of any Iranian adventurism.

In fact, the Crown Prince had spoken to the opposition members to explain to them the reasons for the GCC forces deployment. This shows to us that the GCC troops are not there to deal specifically with the internal security issues. The BDF along with the other Ministry of Interior Forces as well as the Bahrain National Guard appear more than capable to deal with any serious unrest.

We expect dialogue to continue, one way or another, as a civil war will create more long term problems, which may end up being a bigger threat to the ruling powers and play into the hands of Iran. This has also been the common view amongst the rulers.

There have been reports of arrested members of the opposition circulating the news and the blogosphere. We see this as an attempt to force the opposition back to the table and solve their problems with dialogue. It remains to be seen if the plans will work.

Thanks for Reading! As always please continue emailing us at eye.on.middleeast "at" gmail "dot" com.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 05:56

the libyan AF with 40 old a2g oriented a/c is not much different from the BD or myanmar AF - it poses hardly any a2a threat against attacking a/c of the EF/rafale/F18 variety backed by E3.
I suspect the lack of enthu is due to recurring cost of enforcing the NoFly zone and retaliatory oil sanctions by libyan govt.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 06:04

ldev wrote
Given this big picture, from India's standpoint the Security Council absention on Libya was the best choice.

^^^What exactly is India's "standpoint" on this issue? (not the formal speech given for abstaining at UNSC - but based on that which is relevant for the big picture). But I would be really curious about the underlying real standpoint, the vision and target.

Both Bharain and Yemen may throw a spanner in the works of conspiracy theories about all this being entirely fomented by US onlee or Iran onlee. External forces sometimes pretend that they have engineered everything to take advantage of some internal dynamic - but which they only join in once the going appears to have chances of success internally itself.

Yemen's Saleh was (and is) still close to Iran (I think he is also Shia although not an overt Zaidi and hence had no problem cracking down on the Zaydi "youth movement"). USA should be pouncing on Saleh on this chance, isnt it - by the lip-service criterion (that is only jumping on humanitarian issues if it helps to thrash US enemies)?

There is a nascent leftist element also in most of the places where things have heated up. These have long been associated with small, sometime ineffective, yet persistent neuclei of "Arab socialism". They could be activated perhaps by external agencies no doubt - yet it is not entirely about USA, Israel and Iran drawing puppet strings. Why is it so difficult for us to accept the possibility that radicalization in the ME had always also had an anti-establishment component that at least in the modern period drew inspiration from other sources in parallel to Islamism?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Mar 2011 06:29

Klaus wrote:^^^ Do they have any arrangements with the Algerians in place, as part of their colonial.....er bilateral relationship? Algiers would be happy to help just the French alone with airbases while the Brits take other means.

Algeria and Syria had voted against the Arab League NFZ resolution.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Mar 2011 06:33

brihaspati wrote: ^^^What exactly is India's "standpoint" on this issue? (not the formal speech given for abstaining at UNSC - but based on that which is relevant for the big picture). But I would be really curious about the underlying real standpoint, the vision and target.

B ji, Gaddhafi is no angel but his opponents are worse. The Gulf Arab Sheikhs hate Gaddhafi because they are poodles and he calls them poodles, which makes them look impotent in front of their own people. And UK, France and Norway's itch to bomb is hardly motivated by altruistic considerations. These folks would love to apply the same modus operandi to Kashmir.

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 19 Mar 2011 06:37

brihaspati wrote:^^^What exactly is India's "standpoint" on this issue? (not the formal speech given for abstaining at UNSC - but based on that which is relevant for the big picture). But I would be really curious about the underlying real standpoint, the vision and target.

Simple....stay out of an in progress regime change...the outcome of which is uncertain and and the impact unknown, especially when India has no way of influencing events. I think the UN speech is an accurate reflection of India's position.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 07:25

ldev ji,
that makes me even more curious. How do you reconcile the apparent fact (not necessarily your claim) that GOI is not a fool, and takes decisions with complete knowledge of the situation (definitely much more than what we manage), and still does not know what the outcome will be, or is uncertain about the direction of regime change?

If everyone stopped taking steps because they did not know fully what the outcome will be, or because the developing scenario is uncertain, no action would ever need to be taken.

The UNSC excuse given does not provide anything that speaks of the big picture - the overall position with regards to ME uprisings. It simply says that GOI waited for more details from "others", did not get it and hence will not commit to one side or the other. This is not the same as the clear cut positions of at least two abstainers - Russia [against foreign intervention in "domestic" conflicts, forget Georgia even if AFG as being soviet-era and not the new Rus], and Germany [no fly zone will be ineffective and what next - actual military intervention? etc].

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 07:31

Pranav ji,
yes - the opposition to Gaddafi is shady too. We know nothing of its elements except that parts of his own military have joined up in the opposition and some of his own aides are now in the opposition. They have been joined by outright Islamist elements - no doubt about it. But Gaddafi had railed against Indian role in "Kashmir" and he is not in a position to hold out for some time like UK or USA. Why not the now legendary "realpolitik" justification - getting rid of an unreliable and perhaps loose cannon enemy - because in the national interest there is no ethics/values/commitments/permanent friends-allies etc, by using this enemies desperate conflict with someone else from his own spectrum?

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Mar 2011 07:41

brihaspati wrote:Pranav ji,
Why not the now legendary "realpolitik" justification - getting rid of an unreliable and perhaps loose cannon enemy - because in the national interest there is no ethics/values/commitments/permanent friends-allies etc, by using this enemies desperate conflict with someone else from his own spectrum?

My concern is about the precedent being set. If India can mediate between the Libyan factions and bring about democratization, well and good. But allowing the "international community" to use force is a slippery slope.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 07:53

Pranav ji,
No amount of mediation will bring democracy there - for Gaddafi systematically dismantled every single institution that would have allowed that to happen. He unscrambled the educational apparatus too to a large extent - one of the keys for modernization and "democratization". Any reform needed a military backup.

Moreover opposing "international" intervention in fear of a similar orchestrated intervention within Indian soil - is not going to help either. For such an intervention if led by the west will always take the side of Islamists over "pagans". The hierarchy should be obvious by this time of preferences : west European Christianity [Catholic/Protestant/Anglican] white>>East European Christianity white>>Sunni Islamics [<<conditional>>] Judaic>>Orthodox Christianity>>Shia Islamics>>"pagans". No matter whether India supports the west or not, panders to any Islamic party here or there or not, this is going to be the preference pattern.

A conditional support and clarification based on whether Islamism/theocracy is aim of opposition or not would have avoided the fear because it would then rule out application to Indian insides.

Bade · Post by **Bade** » 19 Mar 2011 08:12

If it is for oil, then a regime change does not guarantee India supplies in the future.

If it is for jobs/business, even that is more uncertain with a new pro-west regime from an Indian point of view and also possibly more locals getting first priority for jobs/business following even partial democratization.

So what does regime change give us with our active participation in the process ? As of now not much. I see another Iraq with a prolonged conflict in a non-functional Libya. Libyan tribal leaders seem to not care for their nation and are willing to continue a civil war. Saddam II vs Iraq is getting played all over again.

Except for the disruption to oil supplies, any prolonged conflicts in the middle-east is good for India security wise, as TSP's willingness for fomenting trouble in India might decrease.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Mar 2011 08:18

brihaspati wrote:For such an intervention if led by the west will always take the side of Islamists over "pagans".

Maybe. But then such precedents make intervention against India more likely, no?

abhishek_sharma · Post by **abhishek_sharma** » 19 Mar 2011 09:40

What does the U.N.'s decision mean for Libya? For the rest of the world?

http://walt.foreignpolicy.com/posts/201 ... _the_world

Oil Prices

http://oilandglory.foreignpolicy.com/po ... ch_18_2011

ldev · Post by **ldev** » 19 Mar 2011 09:47

brihaspati wrote:ldev ji,
that makes me even more curious. How do you reconcile the apparent fact (not necessarily your claim) that GOI is not a fool, and takes decisions with complete knowledge of the situation (definitely much more than what we manage), and still does not know what the outcome will be, or is uncertain about the direction of regime change?

If everyone stopped taking steps because they did not know fully what the outcome will be, or because the developing scenario is uncertain, no action would ever need to be taken.

The UNSC excuse given does not provide anything that speaks of the big picture - the overall position with regards to ME uprisings. It simply says that GOI waited for more details from "others", did not get it and hence will not commit to one side or the other. This is not the same as the clear cut positions of at least two abstainers - Russia [against foreign intervention in "domestic" conflicts, forget Georgia even if AFG as being soviet-era and not the new Rus], and Germany [no fly zone will be ineffective and what next - actual military intervention? etc].

OK, so you believe that GOI is wrong and is "apparently not a fool". Does this mean that it could possibily be a fool in your IMO? In any event since in your opinion GOI may be a fool, what is your counsel and advice to them to detist from this foolishness? i.e what is your counter position?

FWIW, Russia and Germany have clear cut goals for reasons of their own i.e. Russia, because it is still trying to reassert a place for itself on a global geopolitical level, Germany because it is the single largest power in the EU which geographically extends to the northern shores of the Mediterranean Sea with extensive contact between the EU countries of Southern Europe on the one hand and North Africa including Libya on the other. India has no such dog in this fight and hence it is unnecessary to have a clear cut position at this time which could undermine future options for India.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 12:12

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 46411.html

Operation Ellamy: Designed to strike from air and sea

By Terri Judd

Saturday, 19 March 2011

The extent to which Britain's military is to be drawn into another conflict was a matter of heated debate last night as jets were being deployed to the Mediterranean in preparation for possible air strikes against the Libyan regime.

With Colonel Muammar Gaddafi declaring a ceasefire, it remained unclear how the British, French, Arab and US coalition would adopt its wide remit to use "all necessary measures" to protect civilians "under threat". Experts estimated that eight to 12 Typhoon (Eurofighter) and six to 12 Tornado GR4 jets would be deployed to a base in Italy or Cyprus along with air-to-air refuelling capacity. A Joint Force Air Component headquarters has already been set up at RAF Akrotiri in Cyprus.

Nimrod surveillance aircraft – along with US air force Awacs (airborne warning and control system) – as well as the frigates HMS Cumberland and HMS Westminster are in the area while naval destroyers could also be deployed. Other options include deploying a hunter-killer submarine with Tomahawk cruise missiles or an Invincible-class helicopter carrier to insert or extract any special forces' missions. Experts, however, insisted there was no appetite for a major ground operation.

Resolution 1973 provides the broadest powers for interventions since the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990 and legal experts said the exclusion of "a foreign occupation force of any form" would not necessarily preclude a ground presence that did not intend to remain.

While Prime Minister David Cameron's official spokesman refused to rule out the use of land forces, Shashank Joshi, an associate fellow at the Royal United Services Institute, said: "There is absolutely no appetite from Britain, France and the US."

"We have really learnt our lesson (in Iraq and Afghanistan). We have learned our lesson so well that this intervention almost didn't happen," he added, pointing out that the essential co-operation of the Arab nations would shatter if civilian casualties mounted.

"If you lose the Arab states you essentially pull out the rug on which this has been built. Holding a coalition like this together can be a nightmare. What if in a month's time people say they've had enough and it's just Britain and France on their own?" The most likely option, sources said, was that special forces would be sent in to pinpoint targets or provide recovery teams in case of downed pilots.

Former senior officers said it was too early to judge the extent and breadth of Operation Ellamy, the Ministry of Defence code name for the mission, and how much of the burden Britain would shoulder given the amount of resources committed in Afghanistan. But the decision to play a key role in the joint mission to enforce a military no-fly zone amply demonstrated the shortfalls in the cuts brought about by the Strategic Defence and Security Review (SDSR), others complained.

Professor Anthony Glees, director of security and intelligence studies at the University of Buckingham, added: "My understanding is that at least one US aircraft carrier will be involved. What people are saying is that when this actually happens, it will be the US who shoulders most of the burden. The British contribution can only be limited on a military level."

Former Royal Navy Commander Nigel MacCartan-Ward, the most senior Sea Harrier commander in the Falklands, said: "Establishing a no-fly zone to take out ground weapons systems and tanks is exactly the right thing to do. Like everyone else at home, I would not want another Iraq or Afghanistan. We will not be putting troops on the ground. This is the ideal solution."

However, he said the decision amply illustrated the folly of the SDSR, which opted to decommission the aircraft carrier HMS Ark Royal and scrap the Harrier jump jets. "This would have been a golden opportunity to have Harriers and Ark Royal off the coast of Libya. This could have been done two or three weeks ago," he said.

Mr Joshi said the coalition forces could hold back and wait to see how the ceasefire offered yesterday by the Libyan regime plays out and whether Gaddafi would react violently to an emboldened opposition. "A UN Security Council resolution is an unbelievably elastic thing. It excludes occupying forces and arming the rebels. However, these things are simple to circumvent."

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 15:12

BBC - govt mechanised forces are 20 km from downtown per other media reports .

Key points
1. Pro-Gaddafi tanks are inside the rebel stronghold of Benghazi despite Libya's government declaring a ceasefire, a BBC journalist says.
2. A jet appears to have been shot down over the city in spite of a UN no-fly resolution, reports the BBC's Ian Pannell.
3. The rebel leader has appealed to the international community to stop the pro-Gaddafi bombardment, but the government denies claims of attacks.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Mar 2011 15:26

Singha wrote:BBC - govt mechanised forces are 20 km from downtown per other media reports .

Key points
1. Pro-Gaddafi tanks are inside the rebel stronghold of Benghazi despite Libya's government declaring a ceasefire, a BBC journalist says.
2. A jet appears to have been shot down over the city in spite of a UN no-fly resolution, reports the BBC's Ian Pannell.
3. The rebel leader has appealed to the international community to stop the pro-Gaddafi bombardment, but the government denies claims of attacks.

Apparently the plane belonged to the rebels, not to Gaddhafi. Fighting is going on in all districts of Benghazi. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/afric ... 12208.html

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 15:27

unless the air raids start in earnest tonight from europe, the rebels will be but a footnote in the sands of history.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Mar 2011 17:27

African Union seems to have been shut out of a crucial meeting in Paris on bombing Libya: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/art ... 2b72b6cfe1

The Africans were opposed foreign intervention, so their participation may have become inconvenient for the west.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 17:39

norway PM has announced they are sending 6 fighter.

probably MLU F-16 with amraam...the dutch , belgians and danes have similar planes I think . a dutch f16 shot down a mig29 over kosovo using a amraam.

I suspect with no carrier in the immediate area (few days away), it will be eurofighters & rafale & F16 for air cover and a mix of rafale, tornado gr4 for a2g and sead strikes. some tornadoes have special sead kit and alarm missiles.

amir khan will make a statement with initial shower of SLCMs , predator and ghawk drones, ELINT kc135, additional tankers from usaf stock and perhaps some F15E and B52 in a token manner ....

the well equipped egyptian F16s and UAE block60 may also be given some a2g tasks to keep the arab coalition happy.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 17:43

ofcourse ultimate power suit stmt would be a troop of 6 Raptors deploying from east coast to nearest nato base, "ordering" nato fighters to keep clear of their airlines and "going in" to manhandle whatever pitiful air force the libyans have...shoot down a few...give the rest a dhoti shiver...pose for CNN and declary the skies cleared for democracy and laa and ardar

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 17:45

india should quietly make it known we are watching the mrca eurocontenders keenly to get a sense of *field capabilities* vs brochures.

they better perform well or else.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 18:09

ldev wrote:
brihaspati wrote:ldev ji,
that makes me even more curious. How do you reconcile the apparent fact (not necessarily your claim) that GOI is not a fool, and takes decisions with complete knowledge of the situation (definitely much more than what we manage), and still does not know what the outcome will be, or is uncertain about the direction of regime change?

If everyone stopped taking steps because they did not know fully what the outcome will be, or because the developing scenario is uncertain, no action would ever need to be taken.

The UNSC excuse given does not provide anything that speaks of the big picture - the overall position with regards to ME uprisings. It simply says that GOI waited for more details from "others", did not get it and hence will not commit to one side or the other. This is not the same as the clear cut positions of at least two abstainers - Russia [against foreign intervention in "domestic" conflicts, forget Georgia even if AFG as being soviet-era and not the new Rus], and Germany [no fly zone will be ineffective and what next - actual military intervention? etc].
OK, so you believe that GOI is wrong and is "apparently not a fool". Does this mean that it could possibily be a fool in your IMO? In any event since in your opinion GOI may be a fool, what is your counsel and advice to them to detist from this foolishness? i.e what is your counter position?

FWIW, Russia and Germany have clear cut goals for reasons of their own i.e. Russia, because it is still trying to reassert a place for itself on a global geopolitical level, Germany because it is the single largest power in the EU which geographically extends to the northern shores of the Mediterranean Sea with extensive contact between the EU countries of Southern Europe on the one hand and North Africa including Libya on the other. India has no such dog in this fight and hence it is unnecessary to have a clear cut position at this time which could undermine future options for India.

It was your claim that the entire position of GOI with respect to the "big picture" was clearly laid out in the UNSC statement. I merely compared that with statements of other abstainees to show that if that was position on the "big picture" then it does not amount to any position at all. It simply says that GOI has insufficient information to take any sides. That is no position in concrete terms. It also has nothing of the "big picture" - since if this is what you mean by a concrete position on entire Arab world upheaval - then its even more ridiculous - since it then implies that India has insufficient information on the entire Arab world and hence incapable of taking sides.

Does it pay to be ambiguous. Perhaps, but people remember that you played ambiguous. Which in most international scenarios is almost always interpreted as a sign of vacillation, weakness, lack of commitment or clarity of purpose. It is not only interpreted so by the region concerned but also other watchers not necessarily connected to the region directly. It is a question of how you come across as a country capable of providing leadership in an international sense.

What I have suggested is already repeatedly laid out in my posts over the last several pages. I don't think I have been ambiguous in any sense.

I also do not think that the statement India has no dogs in this particular conflict is true. Already Gaddafi has offered new oil blocks to China nd India. How do you think that stamps India? China can manage because it is itself a totalitarian country in alliance in many senses with the leader of the West. India?

pgbhat · Post by **pgbhat** » 19 Mar 2011 18:18

Libya crisis: war plane shot down over Benghazi ---- video.

Singha · Post by **Singha** » 19 Mar 2011 18:37

Canada PM has announced sending 6 x CF-18 and 140 support personnel.

with govt tanks roaming around inside benghazi, its a today evening H-Hour if the "west" wants to avoid looking impotent.

praksam · Post by **praksam** » 19 Mar 2011 18:40

http://www.livestream.com/libya17feb

Live streaming Libya TV

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 18:50

The fleet and carriers are more or less in position. The last moment delays are about delegation of responsibility, coordination schema, between the various countries who are committing their forces. Any time now. Paris "war council" is almost at an end.

chaanakya · Post by **chaanakya** » 19 Mar 2011 19:02

Let the action begin. Tuned up CNN for next dose of war action. Fighters participating in MRCA will be watched.

Pranav · Post by **Pranav** » 19 Mar 2011 19:06

Western military advisors are already embedded with the rebels, and they're also getting reinforcements from Egypt (which is in violation of UN embargo).

With the colonial bombing campaign starting up, the best bet for Libyan forces may be to hide in the cities.

brihaspati · Post by **brihaspati** » 19 Mar 2011 19:09

The cities will not be exempt. They have already mumbled about unfortunate but unavoidable collateral damage. Most likely hits closer to home around gaddafi, and simultaneously first relieving the siege of Benghazi.