The U.S. Invades Libya (Rather Than Iraq) in 2003

What if, rather than having Iraq, the U.S. would have invaded Libya in 2003 in order to eliminate Muammar Gaddafi's WMDs and nuclear weapons program?

Any thoughts on this?
 
Maybe the occupation and reconstruction of Libya would be somewhat easier than that of Iraq? At least, insofar as I am aware, Libya didn't have the same level of sectarian troubles that the Iraqis already had when 2003 rolled around. Regardless, I imagine that the invasion of Libya itself would not look too different than the invasion of Iraq, in the sense that the Americans probably utterly and completely crush any conventional resistance.
 

missouribob

Banned
Population of Libya 2003: 5.4 million
Population of Iraq 2003: 25.96 million

The ratio the U.S. Army likes to have between soldier and local population: 50 to 1. [1]

Assuming a similar sized invasion force of 173,000. [2] That means a ratio of 31 to 1.

Basically assume a curb stomp battle and relatively smooth transition to a Libyan government. Unlike Iraq the occupation isn't going to be anywhere near as chaotic although I'm sure the Bush Administration would love to find a way to mess it up. Regardless, the basic numbers involved suggest a relatively easy nation-building project that most Americans quickly forget about. You know Bush's "Mission Accomplished Speech"? That would be true in this ATL. Of course now you've got the problem that folks like Cheney and Rumsfeld have been proven right about their method of war and that they'll probably be gearing up to go after Iraq after the re-election. I also have a feeling that Saddam, seeing what happened to Libya would begin to act more erratically. So basically you've just moved the timetable Iraq gets invaded down a bit.

References:
[1]http://edition.cnn.com/2013/03/20/opinion/mills-truth-teller-iraq/
[1]http://usiraq.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=000677
 

Hunter W.

Banned
The reason why the invasion was a failure, is because they cancelled additional occupation forces to secure and maintain the borders of Iraq, this included a division (30,000 troops) who specialized in quick fire-withdraw operations, and subsequently resulted in scrapping the deployment by Donald Rumsfeld.
 
Last edited:
Maybe the occupation and reconstruction of Libya would be somewhat easier than that of Iraq? At least, insofar as I am aware, Libya didn't have the same level of sectarian troubles that the Iraqis already had when 2003 rolled around. Regardless, I imagine that the invasion of Libya itself would not look too different than the invasion of Iraq, in the sense that the Americans probably utterly and completely crush any conventional resistance.

Libya is and was a mess even during Gaddafi. Gaddafi ruled by divide and conquer.
He provided support and weapons to tribes which supported him and when they became too powerful or influential Gaddafi provided support and weapons to that tribe's rivals/enemies thus creating and endless strive between the tribes.

Was with a medical NGO in southern Algeria and Northern Niger in the 2000's and encountered difficulties with Libyan tribes going across borders and raiding.
Back then, and i have reason to believe it has likely become worse since, it came close to an arab version of the wild west with Indians and cavalry included.
 

Towelie

Banned
Gaddafi was scared shitless by what happened to Saddam. I don't think Saddam, at his crazy state in 2003, and his burgeoning connections to terror groups, is going to be similarly spooked. Gaddafi, other than with Hamas and the Janjaweed did not have terror ties, and he definitely did not have AlQaeda ties, and therefore, it would be significantly harder to scare Bush into taking action. Bush wanted to avoid a nuclear 9/11, basically, and Libya was much less of a supposed threat than Iraq, who went as far as to praise the 9/11 attacks and were as openly belligerent as possible.

Keep in mind also that as much as Gaddafi was a black sheep by 2003, he was still a (however belligerent and nasty) member of the Arab League. Saddam was completely and utterly loathed and isolated. An invasion of Libya is going to have major diplomatic issues the way that Iraq would not, even if militarily, it would be much easier in the aftermath due to lower population and easier to control urban areas.

By the way, how would such an invasion come about? Would it be accomplished via amphibious landings? Would Tunisia (only if the French get involved, and Chirac probably wouldn't want to) or Egypt (doubtful) allow US forces access ? Iraq had a clear supply line from Kuwait, everything our troops did had a logistical center to fall back on. In the case of Libya, where is our logistical hub?
 
The biggest question is why. Colonel Gadaffi wasn't stupid. He did his best to patch things up with American after 9/11.
 
That's another issue with European objections-in an invasion of Libya, they'd have far more leverage because the US would be directly operating out of bases there.

I'm sure Italy could be used as a base. ENI would probably have its board of directors' mouths watering about the prospect of Libyan oil.
 
If Al Gore gets elected and the Iraq War is butterflied it probably happens anyway.

What convinced Gaddafi to give up his WMD's was Bush's tough talk combined with the invasion of Iraq. Take that away and he keeps developing nukes and maintains his chemical weaponry. The U.S. would have grabbed the nukes with SOF (similar to how we drill to do so with Pakistan) and invaded as soon as he conducted a test or was clearly about to.
 

Towelie

Banned
If Al Gore gets elected and the Iraq War is butterflied it probably happens anyway.

What convinced Gaddafi to give up his WMD's was Bush's tough talk combined with the invasion of Iraq. Take that away and he keeps developing nukes and maintains his chemical weaponry. The U.S. would have grabbed the nukes with SOF (similar to how we drill to do so with Pakistan) and invaded as soon as he conducted a test or was clearly about to.
He may not have given up his program, but Libya was not close to being able to get a nuke by any stretch. They indeed could have gotten the material for it, but they didn't have the expertise to make one. They would have needed a sponsor or supplier to have helped.

That isn't the point though, as Saddam proved that if you act like an asshole and you say you have nukes, and have some semblance of nuclear ambition, that will do the work of actually having nukes except drive the West to act now before you have a nuclear deterrent. It is true that without the Saddam precedent, Gaddafi would not know the consequences of continued reckless bombast. I do think its possible however that Gaddafi's antipathy towards AlQaeda would eliminate much of the sense of urgency that surrounded Saddam.

If the Libyans ACTUALLY were able to build a nuke, Israel would have bombed them long before the US gets around to deposing Gaddafi. Libya's ties to Hamas and open calls for the Arab League to militarily strike Israel were not going to be ignored.
 
Last edited:
He may not have given up his program, but Libya was not close to being able to get a nuke by any stretch. They indeed could have gotten the material for it, but they didn't have the expertise to make one. They would have needed a sponsor or supplier to have helped.
Pakistan is an obvious possible source of such help.
 
Top