Will Gadhaffi Still Be In Power In Six Months? Vote!

[andyandy]

Despite all the initial western enthusiasm that the colonel would be quickly overthrone, it's looking like he may simply ride out the airstrikes and the rag tag opposition.....

So will he still be in power in six months?

If yes are we to expect persistent sanctions or will we decide to mend our bridges after having backed the wrong horse?

Discuss :)

[Thunder]

how can we vote if there is no poll?

[andyandy]

how can we vote if there is no poll?

Patience is a virtue ;)

[WildCat]

I would have voted "He's not going anywhere for a long time" except he's not exactly a young guy any more.

[Thunder]

if my sources are correct, he shall be dead in 6 days, 9 hours, 45 minutes, and 22 seconds.

precisely.

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Good thing we don't make decisions about the use of military force based on claimed knowledge of future events.
;)

[Denver]

I voted 'other' because I don't think I have enough information to call it.

[McHrozni]

If the west doesn't increase it's commitment from current half-measures, then he will ride it out. If it does so, the regime could unravel in days. Unless the high level defections are a rouse of some sort (to convince the west he's really a lot weaker than he is ... he is weird after all), a significant campaign will leave him literarily alone to manage his rebellious state within a few days, and the regime will fall a few days later.

McHrozni

[JoeTheJuggler]

If the west doesn't increase it's [sic] commitment from current half-measures, then he will ride it out. If it does so, the regime could unravel in days. Unless the high level defections are a rouse [sic] of some sort (to convince the west he's really a lot weaker than he is ... he is weird after all), a significant campaign will leave him literarily alone to manage his rebellious state within a few days, and the regime will fall a few days later.


I don't think there's any question as to whether or not the U.S. has sufficient military strength to oust Gaddafi.

I assume questions like the one asked in the OP are somehow connected to the question of whether we are justified in getting involved. If the rebels were going to force Gaddafi out the same way the writing was on the wall for Mubarek (not realistic), that's one thing. But if they were just another uprising that Gaddafi would've put down in short order, it's quite another.

[GlennB]

Going by the current UN resolution, it seems to me all Gadhafi has to do is *not very much*. Just maintain a slight advantage and the rebels are subject to the same constraints as the loyalists.

Whether somebody close to his home might want to ,er, 'short circuit' Gadhafi's exit is another matter.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Going by the current UN resolution,

But sadly, the coalition (or NATO) isn't abiding by it. It calls for an immediate ceasefire, yet we're providing support to an armed rebellion.

[GlennB]

But sadly, the coalition (or NATO) isn't abiding by it. It calls for an immediate ceasefire, yet we're providing support to a rebellion.

It certainly looks that way. The proof of that pudding would be if the rebels gained ground, recruited deserters and their heavy artillery and tanks, then proved to be just as savage as Gadhafi's mob. Then we'd be obliged to zap them with missiles and the like.

We shall see, though I strongly suspect Gadhafi is bright enough to have spotted the hole that the Coalition have dug for themselves.

[Ysidro]

Do you really think he's going to obey the results of a poll on JREF? I mean, if it were this easy why didn't why try it already!?

[theprestige]

I don't know, and neither does anyone else. Good thing we don't make decisions about the use of military force based on claimed knowledge of future events.
;)

Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective.

So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards?

Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities?
Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable?
Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective?

[egslim]

I don't think there's any question as to whether or not the U.S. has sufficient military strength to oust Gaddafi.
No, but the million dollar question is if the US (or NATO) has the political will to apply it.

I think at the current rate Gadaffi could last for months, and if NATO were to cease operations three months from now he could probably defeat the rebels in a matter of days or weeks.

[egslim]

Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective.

So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards?

Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities?
Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable?
Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective?

Good question, and there's probably no simple answer.

I think military planners focus too much on training and technological military capability, not enough on the human factors. The key to evaluate chances for success in Libya is to accurately determine the web of tribal tensions and alliances in the country, together with the local's motivations.
Instead our planners are trained to go after the enemy's C&C and hardware, which is a good strategy in a pitched battle against a conventional army, but of limited use in tribal warfare.

On a lower level, our military personel seems to go into these kinds of conflicts with vague beliefs like they're there to help people, save lives, etc. That's a recipe for failure, because such idealistic objectives are unsuitable for military power. Bombs and bullets don't save lives, they kill people. Accept that, and set expectations accordingly.

The political level is more complicated. A politician's motivation to support an operation may not always coïncide with the operation's objective. He can use it to score short-term domestic points, without regards for the long-term effect. On the international stage politicians also love to make themselves important. Can anyone see US politicians happy to play second fiddle internationally if France had gone into Libya at the head of an alliance, without US military support?
Military expenditure plays a role too. If you spend a lot of money on the military, you'll want to get your money's worth sometimes. Enter Albright's famous quote.

[Captain.Sassy]

Hopefully "we" make decisions about the use of military force based on an accurate assessment of our military capabilities, a reasonable expectation that a particular objective can be achieved, and a serious intention to achieve that objective.

So which of the three do you suspect might be baffling our military planners, so that their planning no better than casting lots or reading tarot cards?

Is it that they have no accurate assessment of our military capabilities?
Is it that they have no idea whether the stated objective is reasonable?
Is it that they have no serious intention to achieve that objective?


I think they may have been off on (1). The forces that were brought to bear on Khaddafy were Western air power and the Libyan rebel ground forces. It seems like the ground forces may not have measured up to their hypothesized effectiveness.

Now regime change using fairly limited means has been promised, a promised outcome that may be at the same time difficult but politically imperative for some Western leaders to deliver. It's a stupid place to be in politically cause now one possible resolution of the conflict that might more readily have been delivered relying on (it turns out) airpower alone, namely a ceasefire with Khadhafy and de-facto sovereignty for the East of Libya (like Kosovo), will be portrayed internationally and domestically as a Khadaffi having beaten the West and the Democrats, respectively. Committing more to a ground war similarly has risks for Western leaders both domestically and internationally.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/10/libya-rebel-defences-gaddafi-forces-benghazi

Rebel defences around Ajdabiya appeared to be failing as Gaddafi's soldiers broke in to the heart of the strategic town, 90 miles from Benghazi, and engaged in running street battles after again outmanoeuvring the revolutionaries.

http://www.economist.com/node/18488264

http://img52.imageshack.us/img52/9931/libya.gif

If partition of some kind were to happen, it looks like Ajdabiya would be a pretty important city that either side would want to control, since it looks like that would mean controlling the main roads to the oil fields in the south. Assuming that a partition reflected 'facts on the ground' (think Bosnia).

Also from the Guardian article:
Nato forced a rebel MIG jet to land because of the UN-imposed no-fly zone

[Bill Thompson]

Do most Libyans support him?

This is something that the Western media avoids. So I suspect they do. If most Libyans like Ghadhaffi, how can he be taken out of power?

[Caustic Logic]

Do most Libyans support him?

This is something that the Western media avoids. So I suspect they do. If most Libyans like Ghadhaffi, how can he be taken out of power?

Yeah, but the guys in the east really, really, really hate him. So it kind of averages out well enough, doesn't it?

[andyandy]

Thought I'd resurrect the thread as the 2-3 month time frame option has expired on the poll....

The Colonel seems still very much in power - and looking like he's not going anywhere. Indeed, if i was betting on an outcome, it'd be some sort of negotiated settlement in the autumn allowing NATO to get the hell out of operations - maybe a semi-autonomous region with UN peacekeepers in the rebel area....?

[Toontown]

The Duck of Death is no longer the recognized ruler of Libya, though he remains holed up in Tripoli. 30 countries have now recognized the largest rebel organization as the legitimate government. That means the former rebels now have access to Libya's frozen assets and can legally sell Libyan oil.

[McHrozni]

The Duck of Death is no longer the recognized ruler of Libya, though he remains holed up in Tripoli. 30 countries have now recognized the largest rebel organization as the legitimate government. That means the former rebels now have access to Libya's frozen assets and can legally sell Libyan oil.

In theory, at least. Depending on how the 4th battle of Brega pans out.

McHrozni

[Toontown]

In theory, at least. Depending on how the 4th battle of Brega pans out.

McHrozni

I doubt that the outcome of any battle can save The Quacker at this point. He is too small, and the international forces arrayed against him are too large.

[McHrozni]

I doubt that the outcome of any battle can save The Quacker at this point. He is too small, and the international forces arrayed against him are too large.

True, but the international forces are also reluctant to use a significant portion of their power and are getting weary. If NATO quits, he may yet survive the war, since rebels would be demoralized and his troops would recieve a significant morale boost.
But this probably won't happen, which is good.

McHrozni

[Caustic Logic]

Now that the party of al Qaeda and lynch mobs is recognized even by the US, my partition proposal won't likely fly, but here it is:
http://libyancivilwar.blogspot.com/2011/07/thoughts-on-two-state-solution.html

The people of Libya that still support Gaddafi (somewhere near a million were in the streets of Tripoli recently) will just have to get used to the new management, and they better not start "protesting" against them. That was a one-time deal. folks. NATO will not help out the next one...

[andyandy]

Still there.....

[andyandy]

Going?

[Alt+F4]

I voted that he will be gone in days, but I am posting this on August 21.

[Dayan81]

I suspect he will either be arrested or dead within 24 hours.

[Checkmite]

Rebel propaganda and dog lies of Satan. Gaddafi, God be praised, shall always control Libya.

[HoverBoarder]

Congratulations Libyans your tyrant and the mad dog of Africa is finally done killing your people.

[trustbutverify]

Congratulations Libyans your tyrant and the mad dog of Africa is finally done killing your people.

and my condolences to the Cynthia Mckinney/Hugo Chavez douchebag foundation.

[Caustic Logic]

I used to wonder if people at lynching parties ever stopped and said "Oh my God, look at us! We're a buch of animals. Are we even sure this guy really raped a white girl?"

I figured the answer was no. Comments here, elsewhere, from the masses and their leaders, on this undemocratic brute force "popular revolution" by NATO bombs and rebel monster invasions, I can see that confirmed.

Anyway, bring in the free market reforms, the full access to onshore oil, Vivendi management of the great manmade river, a more profitable and controllable central bank, and the lucrative western reconstruction contracts. All under the flag of Libya's co-opted and corrupt monarchy. It's a perfect takeover, except for taking months, billions of dollars, and thousands of dead more than it was supposed to.

Cut the lifetime health care and universal education for Libya's people, aid to the rest of Africa, and the colorful and stubborn leader who used to be an easy scapegoat to blame for anything we didn't want to know the truth about.

I suppose we'll need a replacement for that last part.

That is, once Tripoli is actually subdued with its million Gaddafi supporters (the vast majority), and the majority elsewhere in the country fails to re-impose its will, somehow, over NATO's fond dreams and foot soldiers. Voting at this point is the enemy, unless the slate of options can be carefully pared down by someone sympathetic...

[Caustic Logic]

and my condolences to the Cynthia Mckinney/Hugo Chavez douchebag foundation.

Make that the Cynthia McKinney/Hugo Chavez/Caustic Logic/solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

Managed to verify any of the rebel claims you trusted as to why this war was necessary? (Massacring protesters, promising to kill everyone in Benghazi, using African mercenaries, mass rape, bombing Tripoli, practicing "genocide," etc...)

[trustbutverify]

Make that the Cynthia McKinney/Hugo Chavez/Caustic Logic/solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

Managed to verify any of the rebel claims you trusted as to why this war was necessary? (Massacring protesters, promising to kill everyone in Benghazi, using African mercenaries, mass rape, bombing Tripoli, practicing "genocide," etc...)

You Mad? :D

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I voted "Other...." assuming that was the Planet X option.

[cwalner]

Looking at the date of the poll, I just voted 2-3 months.


I am such a cheater.

[portlandatheist]

Make that the Cynthia McKinney/Hugo Chavez/Caustic Logic/solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

Managed to verify any of the rebel claims you trusted as to why this war was necessary? (Massacring protesters, promising to kill everyone in Benghazi, using African mercenaries, mass rape, bombing Tripoli, practicing "genocide," etc...)

you're not alone. Some of the resident 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers are disappointed as well.

[trustbutverify]

you're not alone. Some of the resident 9/11 conspiracy theorists and holocaust deniers are disappointed as well.

Seems that the entire Galloway left is enraged over this "fake revolution" accomplished against the true wishes of the Libyan people by NATO crimes.

[Pardalis]

solid majority of the Libyan people/etc. douchebag foundation.

And when exactly was this poll conducted?

Seems the Libyans have their hands full at the moment.

[Humes fork]

Do most Libyans support him?

I don't think so. Libya is a tribal society (they lack the semi-educated middle classes of Egypt and Tunisia), so he is probably supported by his own tribe. During his reign he also managed to turn Arabs ad Berbers against each other, in order to reduce the risk of revolt, so he might get some support due to such created fear.

But from what I know there are many factions among the rebels who agree on the need to get rid off Gaddafi, but have starkly different visions for Libya.

[Pardalis]

Hitchens on Qaddafi, as always spot-on

http://www.slate.com/id/2302410/

[Caustic Logic]

wrong post to respond to - delete maybe

[Undesired Walrus]

Hitchens on Qaddafi, as always spot-on

http://www.slate.com/id/2302410/

Very nice Pardalis, but we are talking about a gentleman called Gadhaffi.