Fierce Debate on Arming Libyan Rebels (Updated)

Brad:

True enough, I stand corrected. That goes back to WWII with PIATs and bazookas. Destroying urban positions may come in handy for the rebels, as well as killing tanks. But the missiles like that probably aren't so useful for doing atrocities.

Carl: ATGMs have historically been a highly flexible infantry support weapon, useful for engaging fortified positions or strongly built urban positions as well as AFVs, note the use of Javelin by US and British troops against positions in Iraq and Aghanistan (often Javelin is the only weapon to hand that can breach thick compound walls in Afghanistan), as well as French use of MILAN-2. At the battle of Goose Green in the Falklands War, the British MILANs used in that era were a major factor in enabling success by hitting Argentinian bunkers and machine gun positions...

Bill C.:

Thing to be considered true enough, but the weapons most likely to be used in doing atrocities/mass killings are rifles and machine guns. The rebels already have lots of those. Anti-tank missiles in my uneducated mind aren't really very useful for much besides killing tanks.

Also important to consider that the weapons that are provided to the opposition may be well be used by the opposition to do attrocities/mass killings, etc., during the nasty civil wars and/or long periods of instability that follow initial regime decapition.

If such were the case (weapons given by us are used by the opposition to do attrocities, etc.),

Then, given that humanitarian reasons were a major factor in our decision to intervene, would we not now be obligated to intervene on humanitarian grounds again (boots on the ground this time being required) to deal with the new humanitarian crisis that we -- in assisting the opposition and giving the weapons -- had created?

Light and heavy mortars and training in using them. It's not just Gaddafi's armor, but his artillery (and mortars) that make the difference along with the most imoprtant element: trained troops.

Our gov is in a dither about AQ types being involved with the rebels. That is quite likely and perhaps AQ types from the region are flocking to get involved. The question to me seems to be how to keep them from gaining influence over the rebels. The AQ types may be a lot of bad things but they will fight and that will impress the rebels.

As far as weapons that may be supplied. There are lots of anti-tank missiles out there that would have an effect. All the training could be carried out in Egypt. The article says the French are pressing for arming the rebels and they make the MILAN. As far as the missiles getting out, Wikipedia states even Chad has it so I'd say it's already out. Wiki also states that the Libyan army has it too.

RH, hold those fine thoughts and let's be sure we really want to arm anti-Kaddafi forces.

Because if we really arent sure and go ahead, I will guaran-told you, an overly exuberant CIA field operative, along with some hard charging SOF types, will damn sure get it done!

Let me remind you of the American maxim that if ten of something seems like a good idea, then more is always better, concerning ourselves with accountability for another day, and where this stuff ends up when we think the party's over.

No doubt arms are flowing from Egypt in support of the rebellion in Libya. Egypt receives the most foreign aid (to include US weapons) after Israel.

With US/coalition airpower neutralizing Libyan air force assets, the question remains...what type of weapons could turn the tide permanently.

Organization issues with synchronization of assets is a prevailing challenge at this juncture for the "rebels"

Move, shoot and communicate with emphasis on the tenants of METT-TC should be reinforced.