Tanks don't fly
11:05 a.m. -- 2011-03-22
What a strange world we live in, where a nuclear power plant requires a supply of electricity, and where the usually craven French call for military action.
So: we have a �no fly zone� over Libya. The United Nations seemed to think it was a good idea, and who am I to argue? Well... I�m a voter. Governments should think of the opinions of their people, shouldn�t they?
I suppose we�re in a better position than we were when poor old Tony Blair was in charge, and he went along with George �Dubyah� Bush�s scheme to invade Iraq. While I believe that Saddam Hussein deserved to be deposed and put on trial, etc., I still think the way the war (and particularly the apr�s-war) were conducted sowed the seeds of resentments that will last for generations to come. But whatever: Tony Blair has his war, and I can�t undo that.
This is whole new one, so let�s not go into it with too much baggage. Let�s try to disregard the latest cuts that have filleted our military as well. I can�t help thinking it�s a funny sort of world where the French have an aircraft carrier, and we don�t. Still, we have the words of an old song to inform our foreign policy decisions. �Britannia rules the waves!� So we make do with missile strikes launched by a submarine, HMS Triumph, supplemented by air strikes from a base in Italy.
So far, so peachy. Don�t get me wrong: Muammar Gaddafi is a dick. And if the normally fractious United Nations can agree on something, you know it must be nose-on-your-face obvious. So, it�s official: Gaddafi�s a dick, and he should be stopped. Fair enough. The will of the people; the greater good of the greater number and so on.
But.
If you decide that Gaddafi needs a slap, why not say so? Why sell the notion of that slap to your own people by calling it a �no-fly zone�... and then proceeding to engage in much more widespread military action?
Perhaps, like me, you thought that �no-fly zone� meant that that member states of the the UN would put in place an aerial deterrent so powerful that it would be pointless to take to the air: that Gaddafi�s fliers would find themselves operating under a very simple new rule: stay on the ground if you want to live.
That prohibition, after all, would cost no lives. One would have to make an aggressive move to bring down the retribution of the UN. Of course, the chances of Gaddaffi not acting like a dick were vanishingly slim, given his track record, but at least any combat would thus have been initiated by him: he would have been the bad guy, sending his fliers to their deaths. (And you need have no doubt that in an air combat with modern western forces, the Libyans would be the ones doing the dying.)
So far, so good. Then the enforcement of the �no-fly zone� actually began... and next morning, the papers excitedly feature this picture:
Now, obviously, I�m a former defence industry worker so I have an unfair advantage here, but I�m sure you will agree on the following point:
Tanks don�t fly.
The Soviet-built, 41.5 tonne T-72 main battle tank is not well known for its wingspan, rate of climb or operational ceiling. That�s because it�s a tank. Hence the name. Did we all sleepwalk over into some parallel universe, that night, where enforcing a �no-fly zone� means it�s OK to go after ground troops?
�Ah, but we�re degrading their ability to operate aircraft against us or the rebels,� the justification goes. Suppression of Enemy Air Defences, or SEAD, in the acronym-laden military dialect. So we target bunkers, radar installations, anti-aircraft positions, airfields... and tanks even though they have no role to play in aerial warfare, and apparently Gaddafi�s own compound as well, although it�s deemed unsporting to go after the dick himself... but OK to slay anybody he orders into the fray.
Incidentally, although we say �No ground troops,� it�s apparently OK to send in small teams of SAS, to pinpoint enemy targets for our bombers. Not aircraft in flight, obviously, because those are big, hot, radar-reflective, noisy things that we can see coming from five hundred miles away... but things on the ground. Things that, by definition, do not appear to be impinging on a �no-fly zone� � or not to me, anyway.
That Gaddafi�s a dick, I don�t deny... but we�re going to be very busy indeed if we�re going to make it our business to shut down every operation that causes misery in the world. (Who next? Microsoft?)
Big, well-educated things like governments should be able to use clear language. What is it that we call that thing where an armed conflict exists between two groups with opposing agendas?
Oh yes, now I remember: war.
So let�s be honest, both at home and in the United Nations. If you felt the need to go to war with Libya, on behalf of the people of this democracy (and France, Canada, Italy, Denmark, and the USA)... please be honest enough to say so.
previous - next
|
