fascinating reading, actually.
at wikipedia is an article, entitled in a pretty straight forward manner, "libyan air force." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Air_Force .
this article lists the aviation assets of the libyan air force which were not inconsiderable at the start of this little fracas. included in the libyan weapons list, presumably even today, are 109 mig-23's, and 36 sukhoi su-22's, among other air planes and helicopters, including 24 mi-24 "hinds." the mig, though getting a little gray bearded, is not toothless, and soviet sources claim victories of mig-23's over f-15's and f-16's, though none are claimed against american pilots. several air victories are claimed for 23's piloted by arab pilots against israeli pilots flying american and french fighters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikoyan-Gurevich_MiG-23 . it is not a plane to be taken lightly, and flown by a determined and skillful pilot could damage even a formidable weapons system.
and the "hind" remains a devastating weapon in the appropriate tactical situation, especially against rag tag ground troops.
consider this.
it would appear beyond peradventure that the "rebel" campaign against the quack daffy regime in libya would have had little hope of success had libyan air assets been brought, unimpeded, to bear against the rebels. but, this was not to be, as n.a.t.o. air quickly moved in and suppressed the libyan air assets, and took command of the skies over libya. n.a.t.o. also flew direct attacks against other military assets of the quack daffy regimes, one film i watched recently showing a regime tank being taken out in an air strike, presumably a missile attack.
the wikipedia article on the libyan air force contains a very interesting paragraph, entitled "2011 libyan civil war/nato intervention," in which it is noted that in late march of 2011 extensive cruise missile and bomber attacks neutralized libyan air defenses, giving nato forces operational "impunity" over libyan air space, according to british air vice-marshal greg bagwell. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Air_Force . footnotes to this section of the paragraph add a certain context to his remarks: "
26. ^ "Air strikes on Libya: mapped". BBC News. 21 March 2011.
27. ^ Sam Dagher , Adam Entous, and Keith Johnson (20 March 2011). "Allied Forces Attack Libya". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 20 March 2011.
28. ^ "Gaddafi's air force 'defeated'". BBC News. 23 March 2011. Retrieved 23 March 2011.
29. ^ http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4048029,00.html
30. ^ "UPDATE 1-French forces destroy seven Libyan aircraft on ground". Reuters. 26 March 2011."
what emerges from this, is that while libyan command and control was severely impaired, the fighters and other air assets remained largely intact, or, if damaged, not so impaired as to preclude operations and putting birds in the air. and, it looks as though the mi-24 hinds have been preserved from destruction.
yet, it appears no libyan planes rose to fight n.a.t.o. air craft carrying out many operational sorties against the quack daffy military, including many very well publicized attacks upon his headquarters/living compound.
now, surely quack daffy had significant sense to realize that were n.a.t.o. to continue suppressing his operations and defense against the rebels, that at some point his ability to defend his regime and his rule would be destroyed, and he and his regime would fall.
so, the question has to be asked, why did he not put his birds in the air, and why did his air force not rise to defend the regime. in short, what was to be gained in preserving his air assets, his military hardware and his trained pilots, ground crews and air command personnel, if it meant the destruction of his regime and the loss of his own life & perhaps destruction of his family? in a proper order of priorities, to preserve himself and the regime (certainly, the same thing in kadhafi's mind), would have come first, and the sacrifice of his air force and pilots and ground crews would have been accepted to accomplish the greater goal.
there is no doubt that without proper air defense command and control that his air force would have been destroyed over the long run. but, for quack daffy not to at least try and wage an air defense was a certain concession of defeat on the ground, because n.a.t.o.'s air attacks gave the rebels almost total "impunity" in their ground campaign: no matter how amateurish, no matter how ill conceived and executed the attacks of the rebels, there were no strategic and very few tactical set backs to be experienced in their fight against the regime, as any mistakes would be covered by n.a.t.o. air superiority. in effect, n.a.t.o. gave the rebels carte blanche to "do it wrong, until they did it right," in the immortal words of doctor john. sooner or later, the game was theirs, with n.a.t.o. air negating quack daffy's military. update, 08.24.2011 . hat tip, theo spark. http://theospark.net. this post, linked at theo spark, indicates the magnitude of n.a.t.o.'s direct involvement aiding the rebel fight against quack daffy's regime. from logistics advice, to forward air control directing n.a.t.o. air strikes, nato special forces troops have been directing the dismantling of the kadhafi regime's assets. my guess is, quack daffy wants them the hell out of libya. http://marinecorpstimes.com/news/2011/08/ap-nato-covert-guidance-steered-libyan-rebel-gains-082311/ . it is a very well written article, and goes a long way towards explaining why the average service person has better news at his ready access than we civilians are ever privy to, and why the average service person despises barack obama as the poseur that he is. end update.
there seems no other result on the table, over time. quack daffy seems to have conceded defeat almost from the get go, not to have engaged n.a.t.o. in the air, and not to have attacked british war ships at sea. so it would seem, at first blush.
yes, his air forces would have been shot from the sky. eventually. but, remember, the mig-23 when well flown is a capable plane, and given its own on board assets is capable of acquiring targets, firing long range missiles, and killing from a distance. and, as the falkland islands war demonstrated, ships at sea are vulnerable to attack from the air when pressed home with vigor.
and, quack daffy's regime would have been well justified in defending itself from n.a.t.o. air attack.
and, what was n.a.t.o. to have done in retaliation, bomb the country that it was liberating from savagery into oblivion? certainly it could have bombed and attacked the regime's military assets, but it was doing that on a daily basis anyway. what was to have been the danger to the regime, in a little more of the same routine, in the event that the libyan regime been able to destroy n.a.t.o. airplanes and ships?
sooner or later, had kadhafi put his planes in the air, they would have gotten a ship or two, and they would have shot down some n.a.t.o. airplanes (hey, even a blind hog finds an occasional acorn, kapish.) this sort of thing, especially the loss of maritime assets and the large crews associated with them, would have caused considerable domestic consternation in britain and europe, and considerable outcry in the hanky wringing and socialist sets.
it is all just a little curious when you first think about it. after all, why not take the gamble, even if the odds are long, when not to take the gamble puts you out of the game?
it just doesn't seem reasonable for quack daffy not to have retaliated against n.a.t.o. assets. by not doing so, kadhafi seems to have simply resigned the contest. perhaps he has simply become mentally & emotionally incompetent, and unable to comprehend or resist the larger world that is swirling about him?
who knows? and, does simple consideration of this way of viewing things logically preclude another view of things, another view of things that very well be held my moamer kadhafi?
what if, on the other hand, he is not deluded and doddering, but still cunning like a fox? what if quack daffy, the chess aficionado, was & is thinking several moves down the board ahead of the rest of us? what if there is a way to understand his behavior as considered and rational?
what if he does not regard what is happening right now as the end game, but only the end of the beginning?
what if he views this situation the bedevils him, this swarm of hornets around his funny little hat and that gnarled old face, as the beginning of a protracted sort of struggle for family and tribal control of libya that will last well beyond this little n.a.t.o. spate of interventionism, and even perhaps well beyond his possible demise. what if kadhafi views time as on his side, on the side of his family & tribal ties and allegiances, and against n.a.t.o.? what if kadhafi thinks he can last longer in this struggle than his adversaries?
what if he simply wants this part of it, the n.a.t.o. jets buzzing about his head, done as quickly as possible, so as to minimize the damage they do to him, and to minimize n.a.t.o.'s "stay" in libya? and, what if "loosing" appears the quickest and surest way of getting the n.a.t.o. forces out of his fuzzy hair?
what if he has preserved his assets, not necessarily in equipment which is becoming outmoded by time and technology, and which he cannot in all probability replenish, by this seeming quick capitulation? not in equipment, but in trained personnel?
he knew that if he fought the n.a.t.o. forces in the air without being able to score a major blow that might have put n.a.t.o. and barack obama out of the game, that he would loose his air assets, and that in the end he would be facing the same defeat that he has seemingly conceded. so, what if rather than seeing his elite troops, pilots, generals and war planners chewed up and destroyed in a loosing battle against n.a.t.o., he has simply decided preserve them by getting rid of n.a.t.o. as quickly as possible? by the simple expedient of "loosing" quickly?
what if his rope-a-dope strategy is not concession and capitulation to inevitable defeat?
he has, after all is said and done, a model for contest on a long term basis, and that is the model provided by iraq and afghanistan. and, if i may be so bold, by the very essence of islam, and the very blood of the tribes running in his veins.
he has a model of the battlefield he wants, and that model can still succeed, if he can get n.a.t.o. out of the mix.
what if he simply intends to take the struggle past the point where n.a.t.o. looses interest or will in a protracted intervention, and withdraws its forces? this is not inconceivable, for n.a.t.o. has already signaled its reluctance to engage in protracted intervention in libya given its refusal to put "boots on the ground" there. and, n.a.t.o. has announced this reluctance. n.a.t.o., e.g., the european nations, simply has no taste for infantry casualties and "libyan quagmire," and they will not involve themselves in a ground battle in libya. the memories of algeria linger, and the visions of viet nam, iraq and afghanistan are fresh in their heads.
quack daffy knows that europe and n.a.t.o. have no taste for a u.s. style intervention in libya. and, he knows that for various reasons, the threat of same does not loom in the person of barack obama. hell, obama and kadhafi may have the same muslim brotherhood "handler."
when saddam hussein's conventional forces were overrun, as surely he contemplated, he and his sons put into effect a guerrilla campaign designed to bloody and demoralize the american military, and to bloody and demoralize his own domestic opposition. those portions of his elite military that seemed to melt from the battlefield (just as quack daffy's seem to have simply shucked their uniforms and gone home), simply bided their time, and then launched a bitter fight which has never really gone away. it is a fight that has not really gone away, though al queda and the baathists have come to realize that they simply cannot contend with nor defeat american conventional forces on the ground.
we shall find out what transpires in iraq when american troops withdraw. we really don't know the "outcome" of that war until we quit the country.
and, in my view, we can never quit afghanistan without abandoning it to becoming once again a permanent base of operation for al queda and other terrorist groups, and to russian intrigue. these people have been around a long time.
but, i digress.
perhaps quack daffy "suffered" this defeat so quickly in order to save and salvage his elite troops and their considerable potential for clandestine/guerrilla/terrorist operation, and he has simply decided to wage this wage in his old tribal manners if and when n.a.t.o. leaves the rebels to their own devices, if and when it becomes a struggle once again between the libyan tribes absent european interference? this has happened before, involving imperial power in the middle east, and in the -stans. what if he has preserved his assets, the most important being highly trained fighters, rather than squander them in an un-winnable fight against the military prowess of n.a.t.o. and america?
this is arabia. we are talking arabs. we are talking islam.
and, when the rebels think that they have devoured the kadhafi regime, they will turn on themselves.
first, the democrats will be disposed of. then, the muslim brotherhood and the tribal groups will have at it, and the imams and ayatollahs will have their scores to settle. things are not going to "settle down" in libya for a long, long while. and, behind all, there will be in libya the underlying conflicts of the tribes, and the rule of islam.
friends, if kadhafi is not found and killed relatively soon, and if his whereabouts cannot be established, we may just be a little early in pronouncing the fat lady to have warbled.
in other words, it may not be over, not just yet. i think it will be a while before we learn for sure whether kadhafi was a befuddled fool in charge of a crumbling and corrupt regime, or a sly, calculating and scheming old fox with considerable guile and bite still left in the person of that grizzled visage. he earned those wrinkles, those seams, those crevices than run over that old face.
i am suggesting that the answers are not yet as evident as others would have it.
it will be a fitting end, ... , enigma, ... , to a most curious exercise, this "civil war."
for, in my estimation, the "end" of this civil war does not yet guarantee the end of moamer kadhafi.
nor, to the allegiances of 42 years of absolute rule and control. deals were made in the tripoli mosques to sneak weapons and "rebels" into the city, and to launch the attacks.
deals can be unmade.
and, maybe answers as to why birds were not loosed. 10 to 1 quack daffy is a falconer, and 10 to 1 that the loss of a bird is an accepted risk when one looses a falcon to the hunt. so, why were the war birds not loosed, unless reason lay behind the decision? my guess is, that kadhafi looked at this, and decided he wanted this part over, and n.a.t.o. to go home, in order to get to the next phase of the game.
the one he could still win.
quack daffy is a crazy old bastard. but, he is not a dumb crazy old bastard. time will tell.
we shall see. in time.
john jay @ 08.21.2011
p.s. next to be considered. what of the euro union, "turned suddenly" imperialist, in its rapacious thirst for oil? where did the socialist/communist anti-war movement go? what in the hell is going on here?
for this is cultural, economic and political imperialism at its most naked. anyone notice a french aspect in all of this? anyone care to predict who will be the largest purchaser of "liberated" libyan oil? anyone.
