Libya: Does anyone get the message?

The more I hear our president speak about this situation, the less I think he understands.  Certainly the talking heads of the media are demonstrating huge naivete about what is going on.  So let me say a few things from an ex-soldier's point of view.

Currently, the resistance to the rule of Colonel Gaddafi appears to be a rabble with rifles.  The on-the-ground reporters seem surprised that Gaddafi's forces push them back when they wish.  The resistance consists of men who are armed mostly with rifles and rocket propelled grenades (RPGs).  These are good weapons against conventional infantry.  It appears they also have some anti-aircraft (AA) guns and machine guns.  These are obsolete.  Against a modern fighter jet, they are usually ineffective.  I'll go into the reasons for that later.

Gaddafi's forces are trained infantry, artillery and armor.  Aircraft, for the most part, are denied the battle field due to the NATO "no-fly" zone.  These forces are accustomed to working together.  They appear to have good communications.  It has been demonstrated that they know how to aim and use their weapons and to act as a team.

It would seem that there is an idea out there to level the battle ground by giving advanced weaponry to the resistance.  In the old days, such an idea might have had merit.  But there is a LOT more to firing a modern artillery piece than just shoving a shell in the breach and pulling the lanyard.  To be fair, that is basically what is done.  The trick is to do so in such a way that the projectile lands where the firing team wants it to.  That takes experts who can calculate the proper direction of fire (azimuth) the elevation of the barrel and the charge behind the projectile.  Firing artillery effectively takes a team, one that knows the current position of the target, its speed and direction.  Remember that tanks and the like don't just sit still and wait for someone to shoot them.

The resistance lacks teamwork.  They lack communications, command and control (C3).    Without these, even well trained soldiers are not as effective as those with it.  That is why during Operation Desert Storm, the allies first hit Iraqi communication centers and, of course radar.   Those things tell soldiers where the enemy is and which way to go to hit him.  The resistance lacks discipline and leadership.  Even our Department of State is not completely sure who they need to talk to in order to negotiate and work out aid programs.

Machine guns and AA canon usually can't hit modern aircraft.  Even as far back as WWII, gunners had trouble hitting aircraft, even the ones that were flying down their throats.  Hitting a moving object with a gun requires the gunner to lead it and fire at where the craft will be when his bullet or shell reaches the area.  Anyone who has played shotgun games like trap or skeet can tell you that it looks easier than it is.  The clay targets that are used in shotgun games don't shoot back or drop bombs on the shooters.  Going back to WWII, thousands of rounds were expended for each hit on a plane.  Those rounds were being fired by men who were trained in that type of marksmanship.  That training takes time, more time that it appears the resistance has.

I do not believe that NATO forces should be the ones training the Libyan resistance.  Countries in the Mid East that have stated sympathy for them are the logical ones to supply arms and training.  They have more at stake.  Their soldiers share a common language with the Libyans.  Supply lines from Saudi Arabia or Egypt or Jordan are much shorter.  If Arab states supply the arms, training and leadership, there can be no accusations that the US, UK or other NATO countries are meddling in Islamic affairs.  A stable Libya is of significant importance to its neighbors.  The countries surrounding Libya have a better understanding of the psychology and politics of that country.  Their intelligence services probably know the players better than we do.

Let's face it.  The United States and NATO simply can not afford the monetary cost of another war.