I personally believe that we should be sending troops into Tripoli, to aid the rebels and because its their job to enter war zones. Gaddafi, although on the cusp of defeat, needs to be sent a clear message and the intervention from Coalition troops is the way to do this.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Troops in Libya
- Thread starter 350232
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
And where are we going to get these troops from or the money to pay for this? Our own forces are already stretched just covering continuing actions in Afghanistan and our other various commitments (Cyprus, Falklands and Northern Ireland for instance) and now you expect them to carry out further ground action? Not only that but carry out urban warfare for which you require numbers more than anything and can expect heavy casualties? Additionally you're asking the military to carry out an operation that will also be incredibly expensive, certainly invading Libya (and that's what you're proposing) isn't covered with the armed forces pathetic existing budget so where does that money come from? Hospitals? Schools? Old People?
I'm sorry but you won't find me in favour of deploying ground troops into Tripoli we already have enough on our plates as it is.
I'm sorry but you won't find me in favour of deploying ground troops into Tripoli we already have enough on our plates as it is.
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
Maybe we can just send an aircraft carri....oh.
Well that would have been my first choice but of course we don't need one as there are no threats/interests to defend that warrant an expeditionary capability. Oh wait...
:roll:
TackerUK
Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 70
Now most of the fighting is over i think the US will want to get in on the act for the oil.
its their job to go into combat situations and im sure david cameron will find the money to fund an operation in libya.
we should fly the flag for Western democracy.
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
"It's their job" is a little simplistic for a commitment of troops. Another deployment of ground troops and associated support will put strain that we can ill afford on the system. It's arguable that the air support currently provided comes from a branch that isn't creaking under the weight of it's current commitments, unlike the Army.
This sounds like a perfect job for the Royal Navy, with the Fleet Air Arm, and the Royal Marines but the Navy is currently outstripped by Big Pedro's Pedalo Hire of Majorca, the Fleet Air Arm has had it's last planes taken off them and the Royal Marines are busy in or training for Afghanistan.
This sounds like a perfect job for the Royal Navy, with the Fleet Air Arm, and the Royal Marines but the Navy is currently outstripped by Big Pedro's Pedalo Hire of Majorca, the Fleet Air Arm has had it's last planes taken off them and the Royal Marines are busy in or training for Afghanistan.
This has nothing to do with what their job is. I think most soldiers are well aware of what they get paid to do.
So again what troops? They are all rather busy fighting out the endgame in Afghanistan or on deployment elsewhere in the world. Do you suggest that we remove 5,000 odd troops from Afghanistan and redeploy them into Libya? Not that I'm convinced we could actually do that fast enough to make a difference and that would certainly tick off our coalition partners in Afghanistan no end having to fill a 5,000 man hole.
And again where is the money coming from? Do you just expect David Cameron to wave a magic wand to come up with the money? Simply put we don't have any more money to spend on wars and defence, so what do you starve of funding? Schools? Hospitals? Old People?
You can't just say "it's their job" when there aren't any troops to spare and similarly you can't just say "DC will find the money" when their isn't any money to be found.
Indeed we should and I think we're flying it rather well by enabling the rebels to fight Gadaffi's regime without fear of attack from the sky or by significant armour formations.
You are correct Hydro. We no longer have the military capability to support ground oeprations in two combat theatres, plus our other security responsibilities.
Actually, though, this is quite a good thing, as the last thing we need is to get involved in yet another civil war that will prove costly in terms of military lives.
Actually, though, this is quite a good thing, as the last thing we need is to get involved in yet another civil war that will prove costly in terms of military lives.
plenty of money to continuously fund the war in Afghanistan for over 10 years, and that was long before 'structural deficit' this and 'quantitative easing' that.
a good start would be a joint operation with the USA to help with numbers if funding is really an issue. im sure there are lots of people who will be eager to join an operation in libya to restore democracy.
'patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel'...
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
I can see a lot of problems in Libya once Ghaddafi finally goes. Without a common enemy, what is to hold all these rebel groups together with different tribal allegiances? I wouldn't particularly want to put troops in amongst all that, it'll could be another Balkan situation.
which is why we need coalition troops to stabilise libya.
the courage shown by heroes Blair and Bush back in Iraq shows what can be done.
MidnightFlyer
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 16 May 2010
- Messages
- 12,857
How about we don't get involved at all?
Good luck trying to scrounge up troops for this operation. You might get the Americans but public opinion over there would I suspect be firmly against getting involved (they weren't even that keen on just bombing Gaddafi from afar so I doubt they'll be up for direct intervention). The French might go for it but Sarkozy is worrying about his reelection prospects and getting France bogged down in a drawn out civil war will nix his chance of reelection. Germany won't get involved, Italy couldn't afford to, Spain probably won't be interested and neither will most other European countries. Canada and Australia are busy in Afghanistan and at this point I'm struggling to think of other countries that could make meaningful contributions.
Not sure if heroes is the word I'd use to describe Blair and Bush's foray into Iraq, especially as they weren't the ones doing the fighting and dieing.
You still have to set up a logistics train to support them with fuel, spares and ammo. That means setting up an airhead and/or a beach/port which will need protecting which means ground troops. Further tanks by themselves are vulnerable to infantry and in an urban environment are basically little better than siting ducks (ask the Russians about Grozny during the Chechen Wars) so you again need infantry to protect them. Sure we could deploy tanks in concert with allied infantry but I wouldn't team up with any African armies as we've never worked together so that means either Europeans or Americans (or Canadian/Australian).
Also you'd be surprised about tanks and Afghanistan, the Canadian's are getting some pretty good results with their Leopard tanks
TackerUK
Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 70
British Troops would never go to Libya
its their job to go wherever their respective government tells them to. the uk government should be intervening in the libyan situation to ensure that freedom for the nation's populace is adhered to. DC does not have the backbone to see this through.
Hydro
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Mar 2007
- Messages
- 2,204
Freedom for who? Who will the "Coalition" troops side with once the tribal rebel groups start fighting amongst each other?
Tony and George did an absolutely terrible job in Iraq. There was little to no stabilisation plan for post-invasion and it all went to ratsh*t rapidly. Morality of the war aside, it was a strategic planning cockup. The first bit went pretty well, but there was just no thought put into "What are we going to do with this country we've just politically decapitated?"
Tanks in Afghanistan are of limited use, but the limited use they're seeing (Canucks with Leopard 2's) are proving themselves quite useful. Afghanistan consists of a lot of thick, mud walled villages that are surprisingly resilient to small arms and light weapons fire; a 120mm HE round tends to do the trick (the initial deployment of Leo 1's were even better, despite having a smaller 105mm gun as they could use HESH rounds; stunning against buildings and structures).
Tony and George did an absolutely terrible job in Iraq. There was little to no stabilisation plan for post-invasion and it all went to ratsh*t rapidly. Morality of the war aside, it was a strategic planning cockup. The first bit went pretty well, but there was just no thought put into "What are we going to do with this country we've just politically decapitated?"
Tanks in Afghanistan are of limited use, but the limited use they're seeing (Canucks with Leopard 2's) are proving themselves quite useful. Afghanistan consists of a lot of thick, mud walled villages that are surprisingly resilient to small arms and light weapons fire; a 120mm HE round tends to do the trick (the initial deployment of Leo 1's were even better, despite having a smaller 105mm gun as they could use HESH rounds; stunning against buildings and structures).
A much more sensible solution than the UK, US and NATO playing world police again.
As for our 'heroics' in Iraq, even people like my brother, who were fully behind the invasion now see it as a huge mistake.
Despite what some people like to think, UK and US forces are NOT world Police there to sort every countries problems!
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
I think this is something that sounds worthwhile, but I am not sure how African troops from the area south of the Sahara would be received in any Arab North African state. The African Union peacekeeping troops from Burundi were made unwelcome in Somalia for this very reason and the racial divide that has only just been resolved in Sudan by the creation of two separate states of totally differing ethnicities, is another such example.
The Arab view of sub-Saharan peoples was demonstrated by the atrocities committed by the Arab military in the Darfur region of western Sudan against their own countrymen who were of sub-Saharan ethnicity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I totally agree with you on this matter. The US and UK definition of United Nations resolutions were seen in the Iraq conflict as being more to do with certain self interests. The USA saw Haliburton as a main beneficiancy of that conflict originally, as a reflection of the Repubican Party linkage to such multi-faceted American corporate giants. Of course, matters after the fall of Sadam Hussain proved far different to the vision put forward by the American military, with the total breakdown of all state functions, caused by the Americans not having a co-ordinated plan for the immediate period after their military intervention.
In the first Iraq war, France was a leading military presence, but it was noticeable that when it came to the second Iraq war, France sided with Germany in opposing the military campaign.
Last edited:
Indeed, the arab militias in Darfur were Libyan trained and financed, IIRC.
@SS4 - I think it is as impossible to talk of an "Islamic" community in this conflict as it would be to call the NATO actions "Christian". Libya has always been on the fringes of the Arab league, and Islam has been less of a factor (though still huge) than in other states. More critical, IMHO, is the historical split between East and West Libya, which is still deeply engrained. After all, the state of "Libya" is relatively new. What has been holding those groupings together has been opposition to Gaddafi, and, now he has gone, so has the cement. What the world must show is that it has learned the lessons from the death of Tito and the collapse of Yugoslavia, a very poorly handled situation indeed.
Fingers need to be firmly crossed.
Surely the whole thread was a wind up, and a bad one at that?
I have seen "It's their job" mentioned 3 times from the OP with little to back it up other than "It's their job". To then mention Blair and Bush as heroes
it's got to be a thread on a slow news day.
I have seen "It's their job" mentioned 3 times from the OP with little to back it up other than "It's their job". To then mention Blair and Bush as heroes
it's got to be a thread on a slow news day.
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
If you want to see how fundementalist Muslims still view any western military incursion into Muslim areas as "Crusader" invasions, see how The Taleban made a point of celebrating the withdrawal of the British mandate in Afghanistan in 1919 this week, by the co-ordinated attack on the British foundation there, which the Taliban lost no time in putting into the Muslim media souces without delay
Not enough thought is given these days to how Western views can sometimes alienate certain moderate views of other persuasions.
Not enough thought is given these days to how Western views can sometimes alienate certain moderate views of other persuasions.
TackerUK
Member
- Joined
- 25 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 70
Think of all the money the UK gov has spent over there . Then thay say we need cut backs in the NHS where i work . Let them sort it out there self. Nothing to do with us.
Surely the whole thread was a wind up, and a bad one at that?
I have seen "It's their job" mentioned 3 times from the OP with little to back it up other than "It's their job". To then mention Blair and Bush as heroes
what part of this thread is a windup? are you seriously suggesting to me that going to war is some sort of wind up?
blair and bush ARE heroes. their decisions saved iraq from a ruthless dictator.
If it's a wind up, it's not a very good one, since it hasn't actually started much debate! It seems that there would be very little support for further military involvement in Libya.
To describe Bush and Blair as heroes is fine, if a little out of kilter with the majority of UK citizens. I ams ure there are still some who are grateful for the liberation, though I expect those whose relatives have been killed by the allies bombing, or caught up in the civil war may not have the same view.
To describe Bush and Blair as heroes is fine, if a little out of kilter with the majority of UK citizens. I ams ure there are still some who are grateful for the liberation, though I expect those whose relatives have been killed by the allies bombing, or caught up in the civil war may not have the same view.
- Status