US Navy SEALs take hold of rebel Morning Glory...

[Farnan]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26609025

Will this move help improve Libyan-US relations? And what is your opinion of this use of US Naval power?

[justicar5]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-26609025

Will this move help improve Libyan-US relations? And what is your opinion of this use of US Naval power?

It was stolen oil, so fair play to the US Navy.

[conon394]

And what is your opinion of this use of US Naval power?

Well technically and legally if done at the bequest of the government we recognize and to stop what looks like an 'illegal' activity fine.

We spend a lot of money money to have a huge military and we have talked up the security of the sea for a long time as one of our rationals for floating big fleets and lots of armed men and women everywhere in the world - so again fine. We can burnish our rhetoric here, or with aid to the Philippines or helping to find missing jet planes

Should we be spending that money to do what Libya can't - I dunno. This one is a bit annoying where are all the forces of all those European states that were so hot intervene and topple Gaddafi?

I do wonder what the tally for the op was? Not just it - in and of itself - but also the ability to do it in the first place. I wonder what those $'s would have bought in schools or roads or damn repair or NIH grants, food stamps or unemployment etc... but that is just isolationist crazy talk clearly I should be happy to be paying taxes and incurring debt to do for Libya what it won't do for itself.

In all honesty I would find it rather funny if the US simply sold off the ship and its cargo and also charged Libya for the cost of policing its own state. Don't like it than get your in a sock and run your country. It would be even more cool if the military grunts got prize money out of it.

[Seether]

The BBC article fails to mention that Pentagon Press Secretary John Kirby said that the seizure was requested by the Libyan and Cypriot governments. So, yeah, don't see how this will hurt US/Libyan relations...

[Armenum]

Just amazing how unstable Libya continues to be with militants controlling certain oil ports and the PM of the country capable of being kidnapped. We have Somalia #2 on our hands here.

[hellheaven1987]

Just amazing how unstable Libya continues to be with militants controlling certain oil ports and the PM of the country capable of being kidnapped. We have Somalia #2 on our hands here.

Na, it is all expected so don't worry.

[Armenum]

Na, it is all expected so don't worry.

The West should learn that replacing a Middle Eastern/North African dictatorship with a Western-style liberal democracy always results in a weak state with high amount of civil disorder. Either they haven't realized that yet or actually want it to happen.

[knight of meh]

The West should learn that replacing a Middle Eastern/North African dictatorship with a Western-style liberal democracy always results in a weak state with high amount of civil disorder. Either they haven't realized that yet or actually want it to happen.

again with this view? because there obviously wasn't a revolution happening across the majority of these nations of course not .. so then you get the decision support the dictator or support the protesters ; or do nothing and watch as thousands die which would you choose?

[Theodotos I]

One way or another. . .the public does NOT need to know it was the SEALs. The Teams have been getting way too much publicity recently--it's going to get people killed.

[Gaidin]

One way or another. . .the public does NOT need to know it was the SEALs. The Teams have been getting way too much publicity recently--it's going to get people killed.

Will bet money that the people deciding on the press releases know more than you about which missions to make a statement on and which ones not to.

[Heathen Hammer]

Will bet money that the people deciding on the press releases know more than you about which missions to make a statement on and which ones not to.

It would be interesting if they also had a whistleblower, who'd shed some light on group's classified activities.

[Condottiere 40K]

Libya was a special case, Gaddafi was about to/had gone too far, and Libya was within easy range of NATO air fields.

If he had quashed or mollified the tribal rebels quickly, nothing would have happened beyond a few indignant rantings.

[YuriVII]

Seems like typical law-enforcement action. Though why not the French get a handle on it? They have the ability and training to pull it off, and besides, :Libya was Sarkozy's pet project.

[Lord of Nihilism]

If anyone should handle this, it's France since they've had a lot of experience in dealing with Africa in the past due to their past colonies and the fact that Algiers, which is in Africa I believe was home to the French Foreign Legion for a very long time. Aside from the fact that for some reason, American special forces are doing what France should be doing, I don't see much of a problem. The Libyan Government, despite how corrupt and incompetent it is asked for assistance through legal channels; this all seems pretty clear cut to me.

Although something tells me that if the Libyan Government has to get foreign troops to seize a tanker off their own coast, they're not going to last long in a civil war.

[Captain Jin]

Aside from the fact that for some reason, American special forces are doing what France should be doing, I don't see much of a problem.

Why in the world is it something that the French should be doing? Why is France anymore responsible for Libya than anyone else not from Libya?

As I said it's not a black and white choice. If a person tells me, you rather have Gadaffi or a Somalia-like Libya that is full of civil war, with certain areas of the country being controlled by Islamic extremist groups and so forth, I would choose Gadaffi, because the latter would be democracy in a few streets surrounding Parliament and the rest of the country a dangerous disaster. Furthermore, Gadaffi is no Kim Jong-il. Democracy is good when the whole country is united behind it, a weak democracy that is wrought with civil war brings little benefit.

For the record I didn't want to have anything to do with Libya, but this is a silly reason for non-involvement. You're looking at it purely from hindsight. There was no reason to think the country wasn't going to have the capacity to stabilize into something along the lines of a democratic government. In fact, unlike most Arab Spring countries the Libyans haven't elected Islamists to power. However they have inserted themselves into the fabric of post-Gaddafi Libya's social structure. Outside of their involvement in some legitimate institutions within the government, sympathy from members in the state itself, and the performance of so-called charitable works the big problem is that the central government is weak and everyone that jumped on the tear down Gaddafi regime bandwagon have had little or no hand in helping the central government assert itself (if it has even requested such assistance). Remember, plenty of people turned out to vote in Libya. The problem is lots of militant groups flooded the country during the revolution. Until it can do a better job of defending itself, and re-establishing the state's monopoly on violence it's going to have problems as these groups operate nominally in their local areas where government power is weak.

[Lazzeer]

For the record I didn't want to have anything to do with Libya, but this is a silly reason for non-involvement. You're looking at it purely from hindsight. There was no reason to think the country wasn't going to have the capacity to stabilize into something along the lines of a democratic government. In fact, unlike most Arab Spring countries the Libyans haven't elected Islamists to power. However they have inserted themselves into the fabric of post-Gaddafi Libya's social structure. Outside of their involvement in some legitimate institutions within the government, sympathy from members in the state itself, and the performance of so-called charitable works the big problem is that the central government is weak and everyone that jumped on the tear down Gaddafi regime bandwagon have had little or no hand in helping the central government assert itself (if it has even requested such assistance). Remember, plenty of people turned out to vote in Libya. The problem is lots of militant groups flooded the country during the revolution. Until it can do a better job of defending itself, and re-establishing the state's monopoly on violence it's going to have problems as these groups operate nominally in their local areas where government power is weak.

I think that there's also an issue in that the choice - between a stable state under Gaddafi, or a fragmented state under the opposition, is a false one. To put it quite simply, we can't actually be sure that Gaddafi would have been able to re-establish control over the majority of the country had the West not intervened. Instead it's possible that the war in Libya, like that in Syria, would have degenerated into a far longer, and bloodier, civil war, with far more potential for radicalization. This is especially true when you consider that anti-Gaddafi groups could have gained assistance from the then Islamist government in Egypt.

[Lord of Nihilism]

Why in the world is it something that the French should be doing? Why is France anymore responsible for Libya than anyone else not from Libya?

Because France are experts more or less in regards to African warfare; they know the terrain more than any other country and they have a long history in Africa. French troops are also better trained than the Americans; Navy SEALS in Africa? They're out of their depth and not suited to the kind of warfare in Africa.

[The Alcotroll]

French troops are also better trained than the Americans; Navy SEALS in Africa? They're out of their depth and not suited to the kind of warfare in Africa.

Look, I like a bit of Yank-bashing as much as the next man, but that's just bollocks. You might have had a glimmer of a point back in the late eighties and early nineties, but since Iraq and Afghanistan they've shown an impressive ability to learn hard lessons and up their game, in particular with reference to doctrine and commander capability. Exactly what kind of warfare is perpetrated in Africa anyway? I'd love to hear your expertise on the matter.

Anyway- I only really posted in the thread to ask if anyone else raised a little titter at 'Morning Glory'. The fact that the yanks sent SEALS to 'seize it' just confirms what we already knew about navy blokes...

[Pielstick]

Anyway- I only really posted in the thread to ask if anyone else raised a little titter at 'Morning Glory'. The fact that the yanks sent SEALS to 'seize it' just confirms what we already knew about navy blokes...

Yes I had a chuckle. If they're SEALs does that make it bestiality?

As for the sexual habits of various services, having had the pleasure of sharing a ship with various types over the years, I have to remind myself it was the RLC lads who were caught having communal wanks. The single most sexually depraved person I ever met at sea was a former REME. Then again the Bootnecks had a game where one would wank off another, if the wankee got an erection it meant he must be gay (obviously) and would get filled in by his mates. The RN blokes would usually content themselves facing off against army blokes, who would then rip their shirts off and everything would descend into fisticuffs before the fun police arrive. Can't say what the RAF are like as I've never come across them on my travels (fnarfnar).

BTW, if you want funny ship names my mob used to have a ship called RFA Brown Ranger

[Lord of Nihilism]

Look, I like a bit of Yank-bashing as much as the next man, but that's just bollocks. You might have had a glimmer of a point back in the late eighties and early nineties, but since Iraq and Afghanistan they've shown an impressive ability to learn hard lessons and up their game, in particular with reference to doctrine and commander capability. Exactly what kind of warfare is perpetrated in Africa anyway? I'd love to hear your expertise on the matter.

Anyway- I only really posted in the thread to ask if anyone else raised a little titter at 'Morning Glory'. The fact that the yanks sent SEALS to 'seize it' just confirms what we already knew about navy blokes...

I'm not bashing Americans but rather stating facts; France is considered to have the best Army in the world. For centuries, armies of various country's based their uniforms off of French uniforms and they've won more wars than any other country in the world. You do realise the amount of colonies France had in Africa, right? The French Foreign Legion had their home base in Africa for 50+ years and they've been fighting African conflicts for the longest time. When have American forces fought in Africa since it's inception? I can't think of any war except for the Rwandan conflict and Somalia where American troops fought a war in Africa, and they lost one of those wars/battles. American troops have decent training but French troops are better; if I was to choose an ally in a war, I would choose France simply because I know I can count on their infantry to do the job efficiently.

African warfare is similar to Middle-Eastern warfare but not quite. Basically, in the Middle East and Europe, warfare consists of tanks and armoured vehicles spearheading the offensive followed by infantry support and artillery support. In Africa, artillery isn't well known but they do have tanks and probably some of the toughest soldiers in the world. African warfare depends entirely on mobility and firepower, which is why you rarely see tanks in battles being fought by African armies and more infantry and light vehicles; they specialise in speed and decisive movements more or less. There's also the fact that the weather there is an enemy itself where only Africans, British and French can endure.