Putting British troops on the ground in Libya

[rov1100]

There is talk of sending British troops into Libya to act as peacemakers. Is this a good idea? We all remember the claim of John Reid, a Blairite minister, who said we could go into Afghanistan without a shot being fired!

[Old_Geezer]

IMO a neutral force would be best. Who is involved in this talk ? Is it the idea that we 'get in' with the rebels assuming they eventually take over ?

[Zeuhl]

We have had troops on the ground in Libya for some time already acting as 'mentors' to the rebels.

[ichkeria]

Can you provide a specific reference to this? Or is it just idle chatter (All sorts of things are "talked about" by all sorts of people). Every person I have seen interviewed on this issue advises against it, in fact even advises against sending NATO forces as "peacekeepers". The fighting hasn't actually ended yet, so talk of peacekeeping seems somewhat premature.

[sandyRoe]

It seems anything but a good idea. Libya reminds me of Yugoslavia. It took Tito, a 'strong man' to keep the various factions from each others throats.
If there are to be foreign forces they should be from the UN.

[rov1100]

In the press today:

http://www.dailymail....addafis-downfall.html

[Zeuhl]

We have backed and facilitated The Transitional Government from the start and (as posted above) been training and advising their fighters throughout.

We aren't likely to back away when the primary objective is actually achieved.

[rov1100]

I think you'll find Zeuhl they won't be undercover SAS agents but Army troops wearing their berets with an unloaded rifle pointed at the sky.

[ichkeria]

600 Royal marines on standby to provide humanitarian assistance and 200 on stand by since July doesn't sound like a "peace keeping force" to me.
I'd expect us to have a backup plan given we have, in my opinion quite reasonably, been supporting the rebels from the word go. But it seems a bit of a leap from that to say that there is going to be a "peace keeping force" deployed to Libya.
I can't see that happening, nor would I want it to, but we should certainly be prepared to offer humanitarian assistance if needed.

[ichkeria]

"We aren't likely to back away when the primary objective is actually achieved. "

It depends what you mean by "back away". Cease military operations, but be prepared to offer advice and assistance if asked, but only if asked, We were aksed for assistance at the start, but even in the worst days for the rebels they specifically said "no ground troops" so I can't see them requesting such in the future.

[rov1100]

The problem is they start out with a small contingent and when that doesn't work we send in a few more thousand and then you get mission creep. Not forgetting it was the British who started the war conflict in Libya and that was against Gaddafi's army many of whom were killled. You can imagine our brave soldiers being massacred in revenge for what has taken place in the past.

[ichkeria]

"it was the British who started the war conflict in Libya"

Er, no it wasn't.

[rov1100]

Before Cameron got on his high horse with Sarkozy and went to the UN Libya was an internal matter. Talking about saving civilians more have been killed in the conflict than could have been achieved by Gaddafi's retaliation on his rebels.

[ichkeria]

"Before Cameron got on his high horse with Sarkozy and went to the UN Libya was an internal matter. Talking about saving civilians more have been killed in the conflict than could have been achieved by Gaddafi's retaliation on his rebels."

If you are saying that more civilians have died because of the intervention then in one sense no one knows that, because luckily we never had a chance to find out if Gaddafi would have carried out his threat to go from "door to door" in Benghazi taking revenge on the rebels. And Benghazi is a big place.
And just to reiterate: Britain didn't start the conflict. It started when Gaddafi's regime started shooting down the protesters and quickly became a full-scale armed revolt. That was one month before Britain got involved.

[anotheoldgit]

Seeing that we increasingly seem to be either policing or training in these volatile Islamic countries, perhaps it would be wise to put together a British Muslim regiment, similar to the Gurkhas, perhaps then they would be accepted by the locals more willingly?

[sandyRoe]

Are there enough British Muslim recruits to form a regiment?

[anotheoldgit]

/// Are there enough British Muslim recruits to form a regiment? ///

Always conscript a few Sandy.

[ichkeria]

"perhaps then they would be accepted by the locals more willingly? "

More willingly than what? The "locals" in these pesky volatile Islamic countries seem to get on perfectly OK with the people that are there (assuming you mean Iraq and Afghanistan). On the other hand Al-Qaeda and the Taliban slaughter Muslims with equal if not greater efficiency, as we know, than they slaughter anyone else.

[Zeuhl]

Well if it was based on the Ghurka (foreign mercenary) model they wouldn't need to be British.

The issue would be which countries we would be able and willing to recruit from.

If on the other hand we encouraged recruitment among British muslims the question would be whether we think it better to integrate them into our existing regiments (which is what we currently do) or separate them into a regiment based on their religion.

The majority of British muslims are from Bangladeshi or Pakistani backgrounds but i don't know if that is reflected in the ethnic profile of existing muslim service people.