redlightning
Banned
What if in 2011 the US and its NATO allies did not decide to implement a no-fly zone over Libya just as the civil war starts to begin. How different would the outcome of the conflict be if this step had not been taken?
NATO Does Not Establish a No-Fly Zone Over Libya
- Thread starter redlightning
- Start date
- Qaddafi crushes the rebels. He keeps his 21st century persona as a pro-Western despot.
- Libyan people hate the West, become more radicalized. The anger will release itself in the future.
- The Sahara region remains calm. There will be no coup in Mali as there will be no stray weapons.
- Assad does better in Syria. NATO intervention and Gaddafi's fall boosted morale for Syria's protesters which won't exist now. The Syrian rebellion will likely be crushed.
The pre-2011 status quo would remain outside Tunisia and Egypt. Gaddafi will be a strong opponent of the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt and will cheer its downfall. Gaddafi will also probably send troops, mercenaries, and financial assistance to Assad to help him out of his predicament.
The Middle East will be both bloodsoaked and secular.
Orville_third
Banned
We might see Dennis Kucinich still in Congress. I think after he took on Obama over the war, the party definitely planned to back Kaptur over backing him or staying neutral.
More mass graves in the desert. Another round of global wailing of "If only!" and "never again!" Libya is viewed in much the same light as Rwanda, a missed opportunity and proof that the West only cares about materially benefiting itself. 10 years later, a tragic, heart-breaking film set during the massacres after the war gets nominated for an Oscar.
Katpur is an actual influential Congresswoman, not a mere gadfly. Kucinich was done.
MarshalBraginsky
Banned
You might need Russia and China to actually use their veto powers at the UN Security Council to prevent any notion of a No-Fly Zone instead of abstaining.
Qadhafi wins the war, or is in a position to work out a deal with the rebels. Ambassador J. Christopher Stevens remains alive. Due to butterflies, secularists fare better in Egypt's elections post-Mubarak. The impetus exists for action against Assad in 2011 or so when such a thing would be rather less of a net negative. Mali does not lose its northern half, and North Africa is more stable.
He wont necessarily win outright. By the time NATO started its bombing, rebel tanks had actually halted the Gaddafi forces assault on Benghazi and driven them back into the outskirts. There were plenty of defected soldiers and even some jets and helicopters and at least one Navy frigate. Qatar and others would provide the rebels with heavy weapons and training provided the rebels managed to hold onto Benghazi for a while longer.
Gaddafi may still win, but he would face prolonged insurgency in the East and in the southern desert regions. Libya would be very unstable for years to come.
Gaddafi may still win, but he would face prolonged insurgency in the East and in the southern desert regions. Libya would be very unstable for years to come.
Unstable, or in circumstances in which a gradual, peaceful transition phased in over time ends up able to occur.
My take was that France and the UK were committed to interdicting Gaddafi's loyalists through air strikes, and the Italians were up for letting them use Sigonella to do so. Had Obama decided that it was not a good move to play there, the Europeans had the force projection to do so on their own.
Without a POD that gives Libya a modern airforce and integrated air defence system, striking Gaddaffi is a great play for Cameron (Lockerbie, WPC Yvonne Fletcher, IRA arms, etc) and a good one for Sarko (Chad) and Italy (Don't look at the bond prices, there's a war over there!). The political upsides of a short, victorious war against a really evil guy with no realistic way of fighting back (since he disarmed his chemical WMDs and dismantled his nuclear programme to be "rehabilitated" into international trade) are just too great for them to sit this one out.
Without a POD that gives Libya a modern airforce and integrated air defence system, striking Gaddaffi is a great play for Cameron (Lockerbie, WPC Yvonne Fletcher, IRA arms, etc) and a good one for Sarko (Chad) and Italy (Don't look at the bond prices, there's a war over there!). The political upsides of a short, victorious war against a really evil guy with no realistic way of fighting back (since he disarmed his chemical WMDs and dismantled his nuclear programme to be "rehabilitated" into international trade) are just too great for them to sit this one out.
Hoist40
Banned
Did they?
The British/French/Italians have made big cutbacks of their military since the end of the Cold War. And even during the Cold War the US dominated such areas as long range strike, aerial refueling, intelligence, and a deep well of available ordnance.
The British/French/Italians have bought some new equipment and ordnance but not a lot and especially in ordnance in some areas they only have bought token levels. The British Navy only has around 64 Tomahawk missiles.
The US KC-X tanker contract was such an interest to manufacturers because that one contract involved more then 5 times all the large tankers owned by Britain/France/Italy. The British are going to have 14 leased A330. France has 14 KC-35 to be replace by 12 A330. Italy has 4 KC 767
So any operation is going to take longer and be harder
I think Super_Cool and Paladin have the right of it. I also agree with Plumber's assessment regarding Denis Kucinich.
Perhaps the Europeans could have handled it on their own, but many European states have made huge cuts to their military organizations recently. Any mission launched by Europe without U.S. backing might succeed, but it has serious issues to overcome before it can.
Perhaps the Europeans could have handled it on their own, but many European states have made huge cuts to their military organizations recently. Any mission launched by Europe without U.S. backing might succeed, but it has serious issues to overcome before it can.
Last edited:
This course of action would have had interesting near and long term effects. Of course, there may not be an underlying U.N. resultion in this timeline.
The OP stipulates NATO does not establish a no-fly zone. That includes UK, France, Italy and Spain. You'd have to be looking for Israeli or Egyptian intervention. More likely that the green flag flies on.
