I'm rather baffled by the fighting in Sirte, as it appears to be conducted exclusively by fighters from Misrata. What about the forces from Benghazi/Cyrenaica? If they don't get involved, one would suppose it would help to drive Tripolitania and Cyrenaica apart, as the sacrifices will be lopsided.
Then of course Fezzan may well not integrate very well into the new Libya, given the fact that it is so vast, and that is where the dregs of Khadaffi's troops, with their massive gold and money stockpiles would hide out, given that they cannot expect sanctuary anywhere outside Fezzan.
I have been a long time reader and admirer of your blog, and wanted to suggest that you might be misusing the word "brigade"
In the American Army, and most other European style armies, the composition is as follows:
A platoon is approx, 40 soldiers, led by a lieutenant,
a company is 3 platoons, led by a captain,
battalion is 3 or more companies, led by a major,
brigade is 3 or more battalions, led by a colonel and seconded by a lt. col.,
a division is 3 or more brigades, led by a 2 star general
a corps is 2 or more divisions, led by a 3 star gen.,
an army is 2 or more corps, led by a 4 star.
An army group is led by a 5 star. In the old USSR, I think there might have been a 6 star or two.
In some armies, in some time periods, a "regiment" was equal to either a battalion or a brigade.
Therefore, a brigade is merely one form of unit. In the US, the primary, self contained unit is a division, and a brigade is normally the smallest more or less self contained portion sent out separately, ie. overseas.
Sometimes "brigade" is used as a general label, such as "Abraham Lincoln Brigade," which might have either larger or much weaker than a brigade in a real army.
In Libya, the army is pretty small, so the various brigades are headed by charismatic leaders, usually Khadaffis' sons. If the army was bigger, those named units might be divisions, as I believe was the case in Iraq.
Hope this is of some use to you, so you can better use the term "brigade."
As for the difference between Misrata and Ajdabiya, I'd wager that it is because in Misrata retreat is not possible. Half a million people are trapped, and those willing to fight have no choice but to fight in place.
Ajdabiya, on the other hand, is part of a very fluid war, (much like WWII), where if we run away today we can come back in force tomorrow, rather than be trapped inside a building to be starved out or blown up.
The best thing on here is the link to Gwynne Dyer's article Gwynne Dyer concludes: which shows that the US military has wargamed this over and over, and we always lose.
The reason is simple; Iran can inflict more damage on the US than vice versa (assuming the US does not go to nuclear war).
Iran can stop half of all global oil exports, and stop it for an indefinite period of time. Remember, if they have provided Hezbollah with 45,000 rockets in Lebanon, imagine what they have hidden in caves along their long coastline along the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, Iran could pre-position suicide speedboats along the various chokepoints, along the South Asian coast, and all around the African continent, including North Africa, facing the Mediterranean. And why not a few in the Caribbean, to intercept tankers from Venezuela?
The world's economy would crash, and as the US strategic petroleum reserve depleted, we'd be cringing as the vaunted "American way of life" came closer to complete collapse.
This is not to say war is unthinkable. It might be inevitable -- as were the events of August 1914 which destroyed the European way of life.
And if Israel launches a strike instead of the US, Iran may consider it to be a distinction without a difference, and the resulting war may well be the same.
You might consider learning to grow your own food, no matter where you live ....
I'm rather baffled by the fighting in Sirte, as it appears to be conducted exclusively by fighters from Misrata. What about the forces from Benghazi/Cyrenaica? If they don't get involved, one would suppose it would help to drive Tripolitania and Cyrenaica apart, as the sacrifices will be lopsided.
Then of course Fezzan may well not integrate very well into the new Libya, given the fact that it is so vast, and that is where the dregs of Khadaffi's troops, with their massive gold and money stockpiles would hide out, given that they cannot expect sanctuary anywhere outside Fezzan.
Prof Cole, what do you make of this situation?
yours,
Jim Burke
Juan,
I have been a long time reader and admirer of your blog, and wanted to suggest that you might be misusing the word "brigade"
In the American Army, and most other European style armies, the composition is as follows:
A platoon is approx, 40 soldiers, led by a lieutenant,
a company is 3 platoons, led by a captain,
battalion is 3 or more companies, led by a major,
brigade is 3 or more battalions, led by a colonel and seconded by a lt. col.,
a division is 3 or more brigades, led by a 2 star general
a corps is 2 or more divisions, led by a 3 star gen.,
an army is 2 or more corps, led by a 4 star.
An army group is led by a 5 star. In the old USSR, I think there might have been a 6 star or two.
In some armies, in some time periods, a "regiment" was equal to either a battalion or a brigade.
Therefore, a brigade is merely one form of unit. In the US, the primary, self contained unit is a division, and a brigade is normally the smallest more or less self contained portion sent out separately, ie. overseas.
Sometimes "brigade" is used as a general label, such as "Abraham Lincoln Brigade," which might have either larger or much weaker than a brigade in a real army.
In Libya, the army is pretty small, so the various brigades are headed by charismatic leaders, usually Khadaffis' sons. If the army was bigger, those named units might be divisions, as I believe was the case in Iraq.
Hope this is of some use to you, so you can better use the term "brigade."
cheers,
jim burke
Good analysis, as always.
As for the difference between Misrata and Ajdabiya, I'd wager that it is because in Misrata retreat is not possible. Half a million people are trapped, and those willing to fight have no choice but to fight in place.
Ajdabiya, on the other hand, is part of a very fluid war, (much like WWII), where if we run away today we can come back in force tomorrow, rather than be trapped inside a building to be starved out or blown up.
The best thing on here is the link to Gwynne Dyer's article Gwynne Dyer concludes: which shows that the US military has wargamed this over and over, and we always lose.
The reason is simple; Iran can inflict more damage on the US than vice versa (assuming the US does not go to nuclear war).
Iran can stop half of all global oil exports, and stop it for an indefinite period of time. Remember, if they have provided Hezbollah with 45,000 rockets in Lebanon, imagine what they have hidden in caves along their long coastline along the Persian Gulf.
Furthermore, Iran could pre-position suicide speedboats along the various chokepoints, along the South Asian coast, and all around the African continent, including North Africa, facing the Mediterranean. And why not a few in the Caribbean, to intercept tankers from Venezuela?
The world's economy would crash, and as the US strategic petroleum reserve depleted, we'd be cringing as the vaunted "American way of life" came closer to complete collapse.
This is not to say war is unthinkable. It might be inevitable -- as were the events of August 1914 which destroyed the European way of life.
And if Israel launches a strike instead of the US, Iran may consider it to be a distinction without a difference, and the resulting war may well be the same.
You might consider learning to grow your own food, no matter where you live ....