Hypothetical Southern Mediterranean Uprising

[Twickiwi]

A 40 year dictatorship on the north coast of Africa falls apart. The country is geographically large, desert and oil rich. Most of the armed forces defect to the popular uprising, but there remains an rump of 3 brigades of mercenaries, elite forces and irreconcilables. They have a small number of russian 4th gen fighter bombers, helicopters and armoured vehicles. They have control of the Capital, the biggest port and 2/3 of the oil infrastructure.

The revolution stalls and the dictator starts to kill the masses to re-establish control.

So what military resources would be required to pacify the situation, arrest the dictator, establish civil order and back an interim government? Could Europe do it? or is Uncle Sam the only one with the resources? Militarily speaking, could a country like Egypt be capable of it?

 

[EXSSBN2005]

A 40 year dictatorship on the north coast of Africa falls apart. The country is geographically large, desert and oil rich. Most of the armed forces defect to the popular uprising, but there remains an rump of 3 brigades of mercenaries, elite forces and irreconcilables. They have a small number of russian 4th gen fighter bombers, helicopters and armoured vehicles. They have control of the Capital, the biggest port and 2/3 of the oil infrastructure.

The revolution stalls and the dictator starts to kill the masses to re-establish control.

So what military resources would be required to pacify the situation, arrest the dictator, establish civil order and back an interim government? Could Europe do it? or is Uncle Sam the only one with the resources? Militarily speaking, could a country like Egypt be capable of it?

Starting with you last question and building backwards, a combined Europe would have no problem winning the day but would they be able to do it fast enough to prevent said dictator from blowing up his oil fields is questionable, From a numbers point of view just googleing their respective armies Egypt could do it (700 M1A1 tanks vs 1500 T-55s ) but I'm not sure they have the political/population will to go on a conquest right now except for maybe under the guise of being a religious army liberating their fellow brothers from the dictator,(not trying to open that can of worms but there it is) but then you still have alot of Libya to cover and to do so might be seen as an invading army unless as religious army, possiably driving the population back into the dictators fold. Algeria while being closer to the objective doesnt have the equipment imo to take the fight to them as being paranoid about Morocco ties up the majority of their troop strength on their western border.

I'm not sure which way their (Libyan)armored units went as far as numbers / logistics but I would have guessed that your looking at probably 1/2 of their tank forces being on the side of the dictator (pack your stronger forces with more loyalists) with them having all the modern ones. As for forces required to stop his military and make an arrest I would say different numbers would be required from different countries, from say Egypt for example will need less forces than say USA or EU conducting amphibious landings just due to the peoples possiable viewpoint that the USA / EU would be seen as an invader vice Egypt who might be seen as a liberator.

I had more but it came across as whineing, so upon review I deleted it. :sniper

 

[CheeZe]

I think you overestimate the amount of religious fanaticism in Egypt. Like Turkey, it is one of the most secular Islamic-majority countries. I was recently talking to one of my religious studies professors and, according to him, the Army is very serious about maintaining a secular government.

But, as you say, that is a can of worms that oughtn't be opened. I felt it should be addressed before I talk about the western response.

I assume that the armed forces are now fractured into a civil war. Before any foreign military coalition can go in, it would need to establish some legitimacy with both the UN and side it wishes to support. That would require the revolution to develop some sort of political (not necessarily military) leadership, which at this point, I don't know if it would have.

If armed forces just went in, guns blazing, it could well develop into a three way fight even with just a UN mandate. Going in unasked could smack of invasion to some on the ground.

Onto the coalition building. It is ridiculous to assume that the US would want to go into Libya alone. It is highly improbable that the US would want to get involved in more than a support role since it is already involved in two foreign conflicts in Islamic nations. To go into a third would give some the idea that the US was at war with Islam (I believe this was the rationale for the lack of US involvement in Sudan).

Europe going in would be as useless as the US going in, politically. As capable as the European forces are, they would still be hampered by the fact that they could be seen as anti-Islamic or with hidden agendas.

What needs to happen is a coalition like that of the First Gulf War, which included Islamic nations like Saudi Arabia, Morocco, etc. Turkey would make a good ally if it can be convinced. It is serious democratic, secular nation with a Muslim majority. And a fairly capable military. Getting the League of Arab States involved is a must since Libya is a member state. Having them onboard would help dispel any incorrect perceptions of anti-Islamic.

 

[kato]

There's a lot of "overestimation" in this proposition anyway, nonetheleast the notion that either the EU or the USA would just drop everything and rush to involve itself in Libya. Remember, we're running a couple wars over on that landmass to the east with both groups together deploying close to 200,000 men.

 

[EXSSBN2005]

I wasn't suggesting that Egypt was religiously fanatic, and I think you stated what I was aiming for better than what I typed in my response, I was only saying that both countries are majority Islamic countries. In my reading on other sites the rebel groups said they do not want outside intervention (USA has offered but so far been rejected) as this was something that they had to do for themselfs. I read that this morning and when I went looking for the link just now another story has replaced it with how the rebels shot down a plane and captured the crew, and apparently the editors just copied and pased over the text as the pictures and even the comments were the same. :unknown

 

[Twickiwi]

I wasn't suggesting that Egypt was religiously fanatic, and I think you stated what I was aiming for better than what I typed in my response, I was only saying that both countries are majority Islamic countries. In my reading on other sites the rebel groups said they do not want outside intervention (USA has offered but so far been rejected) as this was something that they had to do for themselfs. I read that this morning and when I went looking for the link just now another story has replaced it with how the rebels shot down a plane and captured the crew, and apparently the editors just copied and pased over the text as the pictures and even the comments were the same. :unknown

Politically it is a no-go for the US or the EU- that's a given. What does interest me is can anyone other than the Yanks actually do it? Turkey acting as a regional power- now that's interesting. Whether they could be convinced by their neighbours to lead an Arab League sponsored force is entirely another matter. Maybe a little quiet quid pro quo on better terms of EU economic engagement, maybe a greater say on the security council (who knows how it could be swung).

I'm more intersted in the military capabilities and logistical support required.

 

[kato]

What does interest me is can anyone other than the Yanks actually do it?

Oh please. We're talking a small regional power with probably less than 25,000 soldiers remaining, a few hundred tanks and a couple dozen 3rd-generation aircraft. Their remaining navy might be able to field two or three combat-capable missile boats, and that's it.

Egypt could do it. Algeria could do it. Freakin' Ethiopia could do it.

As for the quick strike? Send in CJEF, or EUROFOR with EMF, or NRF, or the two EUBG. Or all of them, if necessary - together that's 40,000 men. Considering Germany and Britain haven't had any problems landing large military transports in Libya a couple times in the past week, it would be a rather easy affair - even an amphibious insertion would be ridiculously easily, what with the EU having three carrier groups virtually just across the pond, Malta, Crete and Lampedusa within easy strike range, and at least half a dozen amphibious ships that could sortie into theater within a week.

It's more the US that might have problems there. At least without moving in troops from CONUS - which takes time. 173th ABCT is engaged in Afghanistan. 26th MEU is engaged in Afghanistan. 2SCR is engaged in Afghanistan. EUCOM could conceivably move three F-16 squadrons into theater - 31 FW in Aviano and 52 FW from Germany. 6th Fleet lacks a CBG or even a LHD right now, since those are with 5th Fleet east of Suez. Notice a theme there?

 

[NICO]

I think the question should be what exactly do you want to accomplish.

Are we talking simple evacuation of US/European civilians?
Are we giving support/weapons to protesters? Are we giving them intelligence?
Are we talking no fly zone or providing active support like transport helicopters?

Finally, should we decapitate leadership/occupy capital/airport/TV center? Do you want to occupy the country?

There's a huge difference in what is needed depending of what you want to accomplish. That's just the military side, not sure yet if politicians/ general public really is ready for a more "active" role in some of these countries/situations in MEast. Afghanistan/Iraq is still in everyone's mind, don't forget that.

I don't sense here in the US that there's a ground swell of emotion to do a whole lot in ME, I get the feeling most average Americans want to stay on the side lines,IMHO.

 

[Twickiwi]

There's a huge difference in what is needed depending of what you want to accomplish. That's just the military side, not sure yet if politicians/ general public really is ready for a more "active" role in some of these countries/situations in MEast. Afghanistan/Iraq is still in everyone's mind, don't forget that.

I don't sense here in the US that there's a ground swell of emotion to do a whole lot in ME, I get the feeling most average Americans want to stay on the side lines,IMHO.

Couldn't agree more. Politically it would be a nightmare. The Powell doctrine (you break it, you buy it- rather than overwhelming force) applies. US could do this if they wanted to (but why would they?). UK might have been able to do it with HMS Ark Royal and withdrawl from Afghanistan (but why expend the resources?). Does anyone think France or Spain of Italy could do this?

What interests me here is

 

[kato]

Does anyone think France or Spain of Italy could do this?

Why would they do it alone?

 

[Twickiwi]

Why would they do it alone?

I'm sorry I'm not making myself clear. It would be a mighty political pain in the arse for anybody to get involved in a hypothetical southern mediteranean oil rich desert nation (HSMORN). It would be thankless and messy and cost the lives of several even hundreds of servicemen. Iraq and Rumsfeld have shown us that these regimes are so ramshackle that to bring down the entire edifice that all you need to do is kick the door in. However, that's the easy part it is enduring the collapse of the edifice as it falls on your head as the occupying force is the tough part.

The nickel and dime regime is hardly a clear and present danger to anyone except its own citizens. Knowing the commitments that US/UK have, they would be loath to accept the burden of another civil-society basket case, and the blow back by the "anti-Imperialists" at home would be significant. Spain and Italy have not been keen on foregn adventures in my lifetime, and France consider HSMORN outside the francopone. It ain't going to happen. No one wants this burden. NO ONE. You ask why? There are no realpolitik reasons.

However, occasionally leaders of militarily capable nations are morally offended by the actions of genocidal regimes (Tony Blair shamed Clinton into getting involved in former Yugoslavia by committing to military involvement). Let us say (HYPOTHETICALLY) that a single country in the mediteranean basin (Not Israel, Not Syria) or a small coalition wish to get rid of a weeping sore in the region because their leader(s) has a brain fugue.

Who could? Could they sustain it?

 

[Commander Cody]

The U.S and other N.A.T.O countries could easily deploy a regiment or two. My guess is that we would need two Regiments, a carrier task force, and air assets to bring them down. Definitley no-fly zone. My qeustion is, why would the U.S commit ?