Gadhafi wins Lybian Civil War

[Bmao]

With Gadhafi dead and burning in hell where he belongs, I nonetheless want to start a thread speculating if Gadhafi's regime could have emerged victorious in the Lybian Civil War. Or how the rebels would still be sequested in Benghazi and Gadhafi having the West firmly under control with an indefinite stalemate developing. Alternately, was there a possibility that Lybia remains quiet, other than a few isolated protests, in the midst of the Arab Spring?

How would a surviving Gadhafi regime have affected the course of the Arab Spring (again, its still way too early to tell how the fall of his regime is affecting it right now)?

Could this have been possible, or was the demise Gadhafi and his regime just a matter of time no matter what the circumstance?

[strangeland]

massacre, followed by another uprising in 5-10 years

[Super_Cool]

With Gadhafi dead and burning in hell where he belongs, I nonetheless want to start a thread speculating if Gadhafi's regime could have emerged victorious in the Lybian Civil War. Or how the rebels would still be sequested in Benghazi and Gadhafi having the West firmly under control with an indefinite stalemate developing. Alternately, was there a possibility that Lybia remains quiet, other than a few isolated protests, in the midst of the Arab Spring?

How would a surviving Gadhafi regime have affected the course of the Arab Spring (again, its still way too early to tell how the fall of his regime is affecting it right now)?

Could this have been possible, or was the demise Gadhafi and his regime just a matter of time no matter what the circumstance?

The U.S. was necessary for an intervention to be possible and successful. The Obama Administration was divided on the subject (unlike Sarkozy and Cameron in their respective countries). A good POD for a surviving Gaddafi is having Obama take the advice of Robert Gates to not intervene. Hilary was also on the anti-intervention side but her switching positions also pushed Obama to action. That switch also can easily be avoided.

With no intervention, Gaddafi wins. No "ands," "ifs," or "buts." Things get bloody but Gaddafi will continue to hold power. Hostility towards Gaddafi becomes much more radical and Islamic in nature, as opposed to the somewhat liberal Islamic opposition we got in OTL.

With no Libya intervention, Syria would be much quieter and problems there would likely would be over by now. Assad would be inspired by a surviving Gaddafi and the Syrian people would not want to repeat the same mistakes as the Libyans.

Arab Spring takes a much more anti-American tone considering only pro-America dictators were toppled and the U.S. wouldn't have shown any signs of supporting Arab democracy. The intervention definitely helped U.S. standing in the region.

[tallwingedgoat]

Gadhafi's mistake was giving up his WMDs for detente with the West. He correctly understood that a rebellion is highly likely when he dies, so he thought he would disarm Western hostility towards him by disarming his WMD program. This was a miscalculation. While the West did warm up to him, they were not going to stay neutral as he tried to suppress a rebellion. The WMD program may have at least deterred intervention.

Interestingly, the Myanmar regime seems to be starting to do the same thing Gadhafi. They're making concessions to reform in the hopes that the West would be less likely to intervene if a rebellion breaks when their senior leaders die. OTOH North Korea has used the Libya example to say it doesn't pay to de-nuclearize.

If Gadhafi had kept his weapons, even as a bluff, and did everything else to warm up to the West, i.e cooperate against Al Qaida, it's quite possible there would have been no foreign intervention. However his regime probably couldn't survive his eventual death. It may not have ended in civil war however. Possibly his natural death would lead to the bargaining of a different power arrangement by the various tribes.

[Starkad]

Gadhafi pulls a fast deal with Berlusconi.
CHEAP oil, NO refugees, deals for Italian companies etc.
Italy pulls the bases from the operation.
Britain, France & others will scream and moan, but unless the US goes full in - as in several carriers parked off Libya - the game is over.

Though I don't think il cavalieri has the strength for that sort of game these days.

[Orville_third]

A few ideas.
1. Libya has a better air defense system. The air power was key, but if planes were shot down on a semi-regular basis... Pilots would tend to take less risks. (And, if US pilots were shot down after Obama stated US troops were no longer involved... Cue calls for impeachment.)
2. Libya has longer-ranged anti-ship missiles. If a naval vessel were to be hit by one, massive casualties would result.
3. Libya uses Scuds or longer-ranged missiles. They fired a few at Lampedusa in the 80's.
4. The AU comes in on Ghadafi's side. He made a lot of foreign aid to African nations, and they do have a higher opinion of him than elsewhere.
5. Al-Quaida takes a more active role. The US and UK might be a bit reluctant to aid Al-Quaida.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Gadhafi's mistake was giving up his WMDs for detente with the West. He correctly understood that a rebellion is highly likely when he dies, so he thought he would disarm Western hostility towards him by disarming his WMD program. This was a miscalculation. While the West did warm up to him, they were not going to stay neutral as he tried to suppress a rebellion. The WMD program may have at least deterred intervention.

Interestingly, the Myanmar regime seems to be starting to do the same thing Gadhafi. They're making concessions to reform in the hopes that the West would be less likely to intervene if a rebellion breaks when their senior leaders die. OTOH North Korea has used the Libya example to say it doesn't pay to de-nuclearize.

If Gadhafi had kept his weapons, even as a bluff, and did everything else to warm up to the West, i.e cooperate against Al Qaida, it's quite possible there would have been no foreign intervention. However his regime probably couldn't survive his eventual death. It may not have ended in civil war however. Possibly his natural death would lead to the bargaining of a different power arrangement by the various tribes.

Libya keeping a nuclear weapons program would result in the international isolation of the regime and the US working even harder to pull at the loose strings of the Libyan government's hold on power until the whole thing comes crashing down around them. Gaddafi realized that the CIA was going to keep trying to kill him if he kept on rolling with that and that was no small part of why he backed off because he was a clever man and realized he'd wind up with a nasty case of the dead sooner or later.

In short, it brings nothing but trouble.

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

A few ideas.
1. Libya has a better air defense system. The air power was key, but if planes were shot down on a semi-regular basis... Pilots would tend to take less risks. (And, if US pilots were shot down after Obama stated US troops were no longer involved... Cue calls for impeachment.)
2. Libya has longer-ranged anti-ship missiles. If a naval vessel were to be hit by one, massive casualties would result.
3. Libya uses Scuds or longer-ranged missiles. They fired a few at Lampedusa in the 80's.
4. The AU comes in on Ghadafi's side. He made a lot of foreign aid to African nations, and they do have a higher opinion of him than elsewhere.
5. Al-Quaida takes a more active role. The US and UK might be a bit reluctant to aid Al-Quaida.

In order...

1. Yes and it will yield no fruit, the administration will wind up with some major egg on its face and it will deal with it.

2. Assuming our defenses fail...

3. For what purpose?

4. When the West is cooperating with them on so many different developmental and aid programs? Say goodbye to your biggest donors for the rest of your miserable existence AU...

5. That would prompt additional intervention on behalf of the anti-AQ factions not less.

[The Ubbergeek]

Weren't the Republicans actually AGAINST the whole deal?

[iddt3]

Weren't the Republicans actually AGAINST the whole deal?
They were completely Schizophrenic about it, basically Yes its a good idea! But Obama is doing it Terribly! We should be throwing our weight around more! Except maybe we should just go home?

[tallwingedgoat]

Libya keeping a nuclear weapons program would result in the international isolation of the regime and the US working even harder to pull at the loose strings of the Libyan government's hold on power until the whole thing comes crashing down around them. Gaddafi realized that the CIA was going to keep trying to kill him if he kept on rolling with that and that was no small part of why he backed off because he was a clever man and realized he'd wind up with a nasty case of the dead sooner or later.

In short, it brings nothing but trouble.

Kim Jong Il is still alive isn't he?

“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal”

--- Henry Kissinger

[HeavyWeaponsGuy]

Kim Jong Il is still alive isn't he?

“It may be dangerous to be America’s enemy, but to be America’s friend is fatal”

--- Henry Kissinger

He remains in power because the cost of destroying his regime would be paid entirely in blood.

Libya actually matters to the world, why throw everythin away to become an isolated pariah state mistrusted by all? Libya's actions would be fruitless, it would only encourage other states opposed to it to develop nuclear weapons themselves and the Americans would reap the full benefits in the end.

[tallwingedgoat]

He remains in power because the cost of destroying his regime would be paid entirely in blood.
Because he has nukes. Otherwise his regime would be done by now.

Libya actually matters to the world, why throw everythin away to become an isolated pariah state mistrusted by all? Libya's actions would be fruitless, it would only encourage other states opposed to it to develop nuclear weapons themselves and the Americans would reap the full benefits in the end.

I'm pretty sure with guys like Gadhafi, their supreme goal in life is survival rather than actually fruitful relations with the neighbors. He thought disarming might help him survive, he thought wrong. A better strategy would be to keep the WMDs and make some concessions to the tribes that opposed him. IOW he strayed hardline at home while going soft abroad, when he would be better off doing the opposite.

[The Ubbergeek]

Because he has nukes. Otherwise his regime would be done by now.

Don't forget China. And USSR in the days.
A capitalist/pro-occident state so close? Hmmm NO for them. Until Kim prove too problematic one day...

[whitecrow]

Because he has nukes. Otherwise his regime would be done by now.
Kim doesn't need nukes. He has massive amount of artillery within the reach of Soul. Enough said.

[tallwingedgoat]

Kim doesn't need nukes. He has massive amount of artillery within the reach of Soul. Enough said.

Please, it's a myth that North Korea's 170mm pieces will lay waste to Seoul. They don't have a lot of these, and the main reason to fear them is the possibility of chemical shells. Without WMDs North Korea is paper tiger.

[whitecrow]

Please, it's a myth that North Korea's 170mm pieces will lay waste to Seoul. They don't have a lot of these, and the main reason to fear them is the possibility of chemical shells. Without WMDs North Korea is paper tiger.
Proof that it's a myth? Because that is the cornerstone of North’s deterrent and ROK government holds monthly (IIRC) civilian shelling drills at Soul.

[EnglishCanuck]

Because France and England were involved, then NATO went in, Gaddafi was doomed. Even if it was Just Britain and France he'd still have more than he could handle, he intentionally kept his military sub par, so any western intervention was more than he could handle.

Only two outcomes for a win I can see.

1. No Western involvment means a bigger slogging match with many more people killed. Then he manages to crush the rebellion after a long slog, and in ten to five years theres another uprising as people become more militant, probably an active insurgency.

2. Back in May (I believe correct me if im wrong it may have been in the summer) the West was incredibally and stupidly pessimistic and suggested the country be partitioned into East pro rebel and West pro Gaddafi. Thats only if the West became extremely stupid and somehow reasoned they couldn't properly back the insurgency.

[Warsie]

With Gadhafi dead and burning in hell where he belongs,

I wouldn't say that, unless you're one of the people he shat on (eg his aid to black africans)

Or how the rebels would still be sequested in Benghazi and Gadhafi having the West firmly under control with an indefinite stalemate developing. Alternately, was there a possibility that Lybia remains quiet, other than a few isolated protests, in the midst of the Arab Spring?


In that scenario the east of libya identifies more as a separate country as it has historically has; but still as arabs

[Sumeragi]

Please, it's a myth that North Korea's 170mm pieces will lay waste to Seoul. They don't have a lot of these, and the main reason to fear them is the possibility of chemical shells. Without WMDs North Korea is paper tiger.

Proof that it's a myth? Because that is the cornerstone of North’s deterrent and ROK government holds monthly (IIRC) civilian shelling drills at Soul.

Well, ALL of Seoul will not be laid to waste (the reaction would be pretty fast), but we would have substantial damages.


Back to the topic: I would say that supposing there was no UN resolution and that NATO as a whole did not participate, we would most likely see a slugging match where it would be that the country would be split.

Also, whether Gaddafi has complete victory or has the hold of the west, most likely Saif al-Islam would most likely become the "official" successor (as in he wouldn't be designated official as such, but would be de facto).

[tallwingedgoat]

Proof that it's a myth? Because that is the cornerstone of North’s deterrent and ROK government holds monthly (IIRC) civilian shelling drills at Soul.

This is a good beginner's reference.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?162240-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009)

All you have to do is look at a map and look up the range of artillery. Seoul is well beyond the range of all but a fraction of North Korea's artillery. Civil defense drills are prudent, but doesn't prove the myth that the North can level Seoul. The North can do some damage for a few days before their arty gets suppressed. But this is survivable whilst their nukes provide the real threat.

[Bmao]

Because France and England were involved, then NATO went in, Gaddafi was doomed. Even if it was Just Britain and France he'd still have more than he could handle, he intentionally kept his military sub par, so any western intervention was more than he could handle.

Only two outcomes for a win I can see.

1. No Western involvment means a bigger slogging match with many more people killed. Then he manages to crush the rebellion after a long slog, and in ten to five years theres another uprising as people become more militant, probably an active insurgency.

2. Back in May (I believe correct me if im wrong it may have been in the summer) the West was incredibally and stupidly pessimistic and suggested the country be partitioned into East pro rebel and West pro Gaddafi. Thats only if the West became extremely stupid and somehow reasoned they couldn't properly back the insurgency.

In terms of point 1, the rebels may in fact turn to grow radical as Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations offer to provide training, arms and logistics to the remainders. If these rebels manage to overthrow Gadhafi, we might be looking at a Saudi-Arabia like regime.

I remember how Sean Mulligan saying back in that time that the fall of the Benghazi regime was inevitable. To be honest, back then I didn't think he was entirely wrong. The NTC's military forces back then were woefully amateurish and I didn't think they'd be able to train enough combat ready units to oppose Gadhafi before Benghazi fell. Nobody wants to end up backing the wrong side of a Civil War, there was the fear that the West could intervene, but that Gadhafi would win anyhow and that would further de-stabilize the region. Then there was that stalemate that last for like four months and the perception was that it would harden into a Korean DMZ like divide, and then negotiation would be necessary.

Hindsight is 20-20 of course, and thankfully the decision for NATO to intervene was the correct one.

[EnglishCanuck]

In terms of point 1, the rebels may in fact turn to grow radical as Al-Qaeda and other radical Islamic organizations offer to provide training, arms and logistics to the remainders. If these rebels manage to overthrow Gadhafi, we might be looking at a Saudi-Arabia like regime.

I remember how Sean Mulligan saying back in that time that the fall of the Benghazi regime was inevitable. To be honest, back then I didn't think he was entirely wrong. The NTC's military forces back then were woefully amateurish and I didn't think they'd be able to train enough combat ready units to oppose Gadhafi before Benghazi fell. Nobody wants to end up backing the wrong side of a Civil War, there was the fear that the West could intervene, but that Gadhafi would win anyhow and that would further de-stabilize the region. Then there was that stalemate that last for like four months and the perception was that it would harden into a Korean DMZ like divide, and then negotiation would be necessary.

Hindsight is 20-20 of course, and thankfully the decision for NATO to intervene was the correct one.

I personally never thought that the Benghazi regime would fall, hence my very scathing remarks. I found such pessimism completely unfounded and i considered that there was a stalemate to be extremely tactically significant. With no stalemate and a successful Gaddafi offensive with the Rebels only holding on to some Eastern coastal towns, then i would have said there was trouble, but the fact that Gaddafi didn't launch a successful counter-attack was key, it pretty much showed he was doomed. If he had actually succeeded in breaking the stalemate for any length of time then i might have been pessimistic, since it was the rebels, well our pessimism was utterly unfounded.

Pardon the rant I just found that to be completely inexcusable by our politcians.

[paulo]

If UK, France and all don't intervene, Gadhafi wins easy.....
Some even think that the decision is made even before the 'civil war' starts.

[whitecrow]

This is a good beginner's reference.

http://www.militaryphotos.net/forums/showthread.php?162240-Bluffer-s-Guide-North-Korea-strikes!-(2009)

All you have to do is look at a map and look up the range of artillery. Seoul is well beyond the range of all but a fraction of North Korea's artillery. Civil defense drills are prudent, but doesn't prove the myth that the North can level Seoul. The North can do some damage for a few days before their arty gets suppressed. But this is survivable whilst their nukes provide the real threat.

Looks long, but I'll give it a read when I have time. One question for you though: if, as you claim, the artillery is of no real threat while the nukes are than why didn't ROK bomb DPRK's nuclear site? You know, like how the Israelis bombed Iraq's & Syria's nuclear sites they deemed a threat. After all, you say the artillery is of no real consequence so what does South Korea have to loose?

[tallwingedgoat]

Looks long, but I'll give it a read when I have time. One question for you though: if, as you claim, the artillery is of no real threat while the nukes are than why didn't ROK bomb DPRK's nuclear site? You know, like how the Israelis bombed Iraq's & Syria's nuclear sites they deemed a threat. After all, you say the artillery is of no real consequence so what does South Korea have to loose?

Because they know North Korea is scared and cornered but not suicidal. Their nukes and their crazy antics are a form of deterrent. Unless South Korea invaded the north, there's little worry of Kim actually using a nuke.

[RamscoopRaider]

Looks long, but I'll give it a read when I have time. One question for you though: if, as you claim, the artillery is of no real threat while the nukes are than why didn't ROK bomb DPRK's nuclear site? You know, like how the Israelis bombed Iraq's & Syria's nuclear sites they deemed a threat. After all, you say the artillery is of no real consequence so what does South Korea have to loose?
DPRK is paranoid, and has a very large air defense system specifically designed to protect against the ROK, doing so without a full scale war to wear down the defenses would be suicide for anything but a USAF B-2 or F-117 and not exactly healthy for them

[whitecrow]

Because they know North Korea is scared and cornered but not suicidal. Their nukes and their crazy antics are a form of deterrent. Unless South Korea invaded the north, there's little worry of Kim actually using a nuke.
Again, if what you say about the artillery is true why didn't ROK bomb DPRKs program BEFORE they built the bomb? You know, like Israel did with its enemies' programs. If your enemy had no deterrent or leverage, why let him get a deterrent?

[RamscoopRaider]

Again, if what you say about the artillery is true why didn't ROK bomb DPRKs program BEFORE they built the bomb? You know, like Israel did with its enemies' programs. If your enemy had no deterrent or leverage, why let him get a deterrent?
See above post, the ROK is concerned about its pilots lives and the DRPK has better air defenses than Syria or Iraq

[whitecrow]

DPRK is paranoid, and has a very large air defense system specifically designed to protect against the ROK, doing so without a full scale war to wear down the defenses would be suicide for anything but a USAF B-2 or F-117 and not exactly healthy for them
Not so sure. North Korea's air defense system is large, yes, but it is also outdated. And Iraqis had a good AAA system in 1983 when Israeli F-15s showed up, no?

[RamscoopRaider]

Not so sure. North Korea's air defense system is large, yes, but it is also outdated. And Iraqis had a good AAA system in 1983 when Israeli F-15s showed up, no?
Outdated yes, far larger with less airspace to defend yes. Iraq also was at war with Iran at the time and could not concentrate fully on Israel the DPRK has not such trouble and would be more likely to scramble air defense fighters. The DPRK is less than 1/3rd the size and lacks neighboring neutral countries airspace to violate, sake the PRC who would not be amused

[paulo]

LOL - Is supposed to be about Gadhafi......

[KorgusCyborgus]

The rebels might have turned to Al-Quaeda, which would have forced the West to support Gadaffi against their insurgency. Given that Gadaffi would be seen as a mass murderer, it would have done serious political damage to Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy.