Saturday, March 5, 2011

Libyan NFZ: Hard? Easy?

(F3s off on patrol one last time.....)

No Fly Zones sound impressive. And indeed, they can be! Lots of jets patrolling the skies and stopping nasty dictators (e.g. Saddam Hussein) from using air power to schwack good guys (e.g. Kurds) at little cost and virtually no risk to our servicepeople. Much better than the dirty, dangerous expensive business of putting soldiers on the ground in unfamiliar countries with language and cultural barriers to fight someone else's war. In this sense, the NFZ is the epitome of modern gesture politics - a modern equivalent of sending a gunboat - looks great, little if any risk to us, and satisfies the dangerous disease of "do-somethingitis" that often infects politicians. ("Something must be done!" etc etc)

NFZs for humanitarian purposes are apparently legally convenient: the Northern and Southern Iraqi NFZs were not directly covered by a UN Security council Resolution. UNSCR 688 didn't expressly authorise them, and no-one (with the possible exception of the Iraqi regime) seemed to mind too much, even when it came to so-called "Response Options" which were preplanned attacks in response to Iraqi air-defence activity. Better, over the period of 12 years and more than 180,000 sorties, no manned coalition aircraft were shot down. So, an NFZ appears to provide a low-cost effort for policing - a policy initially proposed by Winston Churchill in the 1920s.

Jolly good.

(S-300PMU-2 / SA-20 GARGOYLE: An issue)

But there are issues. Specifically, there is the Libyan integrated air defence system (IADS), which in all likelihood would have to be deactivated / destroyed before any serious NFZ partoling could get underway. According to Wikipedia the IADS may include S-300PMU-2 / SA-20 GARGOYLE, which is a rather dangerous issue. As in a Corporal Jones "Don't Panic" dangerous sort of an issue....

(Libyan Mi-35 HIND. Bad news if you're a protestor - photo by Chris Lofting)

Second, the real threat to the Libyan civilians /protesters / rebels is from ground forces operating with helicopters much more than jet fighter-bombers (FJs). And as finding and shooting down low-flying helicopters is a non-trivial task, implementing an NFZ that stops helicopters flying requires 24-hour coverage, or the political will to disable or destroy the Libyan AF on the ground.

Third, this means that we're into air attacks against Libyan armed forces targets, so why not be effective by bombing the tanks, artillery and armoured personnel carriers that are being used against the non-Gaddafi forces. Which runs the serious risk - which needs to be acknowledged up front and addressed - that in imposing an NFZ we are on a slippery slope to actual humanitarian intervention on the side of the anti-Gaddafi forces. On this basis, we'd be well advised to just fess up and get on with it robustly - whilst robustly defending the legality of the intervention. More force sooner to remove Gaddafi's regime will save more lives, so if the international community is serious about it, let's get on with it.

 ("Now Dave, have you really thought through this 'No Fly Zone' business...?")

All of which seems to have missed British Prime Minister David Cameron when he proposed an NFZ, leading to the humiliation by US Secretary of Defense Bob Gates (seen chatting with "call me Dave" above in 2010) to basically rubbish it as "loose talk" (Ouch!). Why does Gates' view matter? Um, because the UK cannot begin to think about establishing an NFZ without the US. (Especially now after the continuing cuts following the SDSR.) In fact, no-one can - any NFZ will be US-led as only the USAF and the US Navy have the capacity and the capability to do it.

So by all means have an NFZ, preferably under UN, Arab League, African Union or even conceivably OIC auspices. But to be effective in saving Libyan lives by removing this awful regime, invoke the humanitarian exception to the Art 2(4) prohibition on the use of force and attack Gaddafi's instruments of repression.

And do it now.

Wednesday, March 2, 2011

Preservation, Reconstruction or Recreation?

(Who cares? It's brilliant!)

One of the random steam train posts. Hurrah!


There is kind of a conceptual - and indeed, existential - question about preservation of things. Nowhere is this more heated than amongst railway enthusiasts about their hobby. Don't ever get confused that the most passionate thing is what colour do you paint it. And exactly what period condition are you preserving?

Why? Well, preserving things is the point of preservation. One would think so, at any rate. If not then why would you seek to preserve it?

And then I saw this photo this morning on the Welsh Highland Railway website. The Welsh Highland Railway itself now runs from Caernarvon to Portmadoc via the southwestern side of Mt. Snowdon, Wales's highest peak. Created in the 1920s by public funds from defunct slate railways to promote tourism, it was a magnificent failure, and was all ripped up in the 1940s to support the war effort. Preservationists / idealists / dreamers began trying to rebuild it as early as 1964, and after legal battles and chaos and stuff, it was physically completed late last year. The result is that, with £12m or so of public funding, it is finished.

So to the picture above. The first engine is called Lyd, and is a 2010 recreation of a Manning Wardle locomotive from the much lamented Lynton and Barnstaple Railway in Devon. The second engine, K1, is of significant historical importance, as the world's first Garratt locomotive, originally built for the North East Dundas Tramway in Tasmania. K1 was reimported to the UK, and has been rebuilt for the Welsh Highland, and is operational for the first time since the 1929. The coaches are modern 2ft gauge stock built for the Welsh Highland and Ffestiniog Railways.

In other words, nothing in this picture is original. But who cares? It's all brilliant and makes thousands happy every year (as well as providing an all-weather attraction, which is pretty key in this part of North Wales...). And it allows you tell the history of the area, the economy and the Empire.

And the paint? Lyd's forebears were scrapped in the 1930s and therefore never saw the nationalisation of Britain's railways in 1948, and thus never saw BR black. But no problem, she looks great!

Tuesday, March 1, 2011

Libya - a case for R2P?

(F3s finale over Libya? Sadly, probably not. Fuel-to-Noise. Go!)

There's been some talk about setting up a No-Fly Zone (NFZ) over Libya in the last few days. Whether this is a good idea militarily is a debate for others to have, but the legal position is clear enough: if the Security Council passes a Chapter VII resolution under Article 41 or Article 42, then it is legal to use force to enforce it.

If the Russians veto a draft resolution permitting an NFZ, then the questions around humanitarian intervention and R2P will resurface. As I blogged last week, there's a serious discussion to be had, but in my view there is an humanitarian exception and an NFZ is a decent way to start protecting the Libyan people from the depredations of the Gaddafi regime's death-throws. It is unlikely to be enough - Libya is vast and the number of aircraft that would be required to have standing patrols over all of the airfields under Gaddafi loyalist command, along with the SEAD (Suppression of Enemy Air Defences) support to ensure that surface to air missiles stayed on their launch rails, would be immense.

(More heroic F3 turning and burning into the sunset....)

But it would be a start.