This's my lousy translation with some edits, to those who read French - original article.
Who is monsieur Borde? The guy to the right in sunglasses, the man who five months ago predicted what would happen if France "will bow to the wishes of two idiots and a peacock". So, he gave an interview. He rarely gives them. More often he writes long boring articles, which are difficult to translate and not always interesting, but that is totally opposite of his interviews. M. Borde is a superstar of Oriental Political Science in France. Confident, well-connected, almost never wrong analyst with experience and reputation. Borde used to be a memeber of a former defense minister team, which helped Sarkozy to climb to his throne. But eventually Borde was left behind due to personal independence and inability to play as a "team member". If things turned out differently, Jacques would have been no less than the head of the Department of the Middle East in the French Foreign or Defense Ministry. So as you've might understand his relationship with Sarkozy and his "puppies" as he call them, Juppe and Longuet (Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Defence respectively), are complicated. Think for yourselves. The person, who has it's own sources of information on things concerning the Middle East and the Maghreb, bitterly hating the current political elite, that dumped him, who wasn't fond of "wild foolishness started by halfwits" from the beginning, not bound by vow of silence, but quite the opposite, he never misses a chance to shake skeletons out of the Elysee Palace closet - he gave an interview.
With regard to Libya's now... What are the opinions on this war?
Various. In different countries there're different opinions ...
How so?
In principle, we have three parties. First party is sitting on their fences, second party has jumped off, and third party are the tough-guys...
Party 1. It's the United States. It is business for them, so they will come when Europe and the Gulf monarchies will pay all bills and do everything needed to be done. In the meantime, they're forming troops out of the private military companies (PMCs) for future use. It is impossible to do anything differently, since the rebels themselves are totally useless. Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs Jeffrey D. Feltman is already making deals between rebels and loyalists, achieving his goals as well. NATO for them is nothing. Admiral Michael G. Mullen was not afraid to throw in the face of Europe that "NATO at an impasse." He then, if you remember, said further that "we should hunt for Gaddafi", but interesting part is not the confession of a killer, but the phrase about the "impasse".
Party 2. These're Norwegians and Belgians, who openly sabotage bombings. It's the Italians, who withdrew its aircraft carrier. Well, some guys in the States as well, who used the repair of Charles de Gaulle as an exuse to remove a dozen of C-2A from the operation.
Party 3. In general, these're the United Kingdom and France. They can not eliminate Gaddafi, no matter what. They babble something about "Libya after Gaddafi", they call to something, they poorly understand to what exactly, trying to present this as "hard work of the EU." But who will eat this kind of souffle? Just our crazy ultra probably? But they decide nothing. As a result, frankly, the situation begins to resemble the ass.
Why is that?
No money. The war ate up everything. Let's be honest: in 1914-1918 we threw people under gunfire, hoping to end the war at all costs. We were short on troops, run low on money and ammo. The same thing here. We threw in the best of mercenaries, nobody would ever think there're still this kind of soldiers around, the top dogs of war of the good old era of British corporations. And? Insurgents are shit. Those whom we sent, they are indeed have done something, but what? In the mountains of Nafusa it began loudly, but fell through eventually, going around in a circles. Brega? No matter how much our military experts at media outlets would masturbate, everything is bad there. Only in Misrata we somehow managed to keep what we've captured previously. And here they've killed Abdel Fatah Yunis. Aw, thanks, allies, that's really helped a lot. Now we're doing everything to keep his son, otherwise he and his men would run back to Gaddafi. Benghazi. It's massacre, even without loyalists, but there're a lot of loyalists as well. So it's a victory or what?
And in terms of logistics?
First, a general remark. Aviation, by itself, can not win completely. Never. Let the fans of John A. Warden III and his "Five Rings Model" read the works of his guru carefully, he pointed out the limits of his method. No, I know, they're trying to make the war in Libya's looks like it's following Warden's formula: "In contrast to the views of Clausewitz, my opinion is that the destruction of the enemy army is not the essence of war, but the essence of war - to convince the enemy to admit defeat and lay down their arms without useless resistance". Okay. Valid. But look at what Longuet and Juppe are doing, and you will see that our idiots have no idea what the great strategist mean.
As the Comparative Strategy Institute has pointed out, according to his "theory of strategic paralysis" "main point of the air war is that the aviation has a unique ability to accomplish strategic tasks with maximum efficiency and minimal costs. Its agility, power and speed allow of being out of danger, but be dangerous to the enemy, wherever he was". That is what Clausewitz called the "enemy's centers of gravity" or "the point of greatest vulnerability, place of the decisive blow" according to Warden. It teaches that the most important thing is "to pinpoint the centers of gravity at the most critical, initial stage of operation." This, in fact, the whole point.
And what we see? Our... uh... strategists have defined nothing, except for the single aim - residence of Gaddafi. Thank you. And then they've started to smash everything with costly bombs, calling it a "military targets". And worst of all, these "military targets" do not have anything to do with military objects. Gaddafi's car wasn't even hit! The first round has failed completely, worse - Gaddafi wasn't even scared. It failed so hard that that London and Paris admit that "we can not convince the enemy to admit that we are stronger, he does not believe, and we have to prove it more and more, but all in vain". You've heard it for yourself!
Another "military target" even more "military" than previous ones - the media, regular media. Why the fuck bomb the media in the fight for human rights? We can't convince them, we can't deceive them - so we bomb them, bomb everything that stick up out of the ground, like telecommunication antennas. We bomb Tripoli, bomb Sirte... and the explanation of all these: "We should force them not to listen to Colonel Gaddafi!". Damn, but if that so, it turns out he is telling the truth? And we are afraid of it? Oh-la-la, the next day not only Libya, all of France races to watch and listen to the Colonel... Thank you!
And I don't even talk about the massacre of civilians, which is no way authorized by the UN. The result? Demonstrations in support of Gaddafi's become so massive they've never been for thirty years!
What went wrong?
If we go by the theory of Warden, to win, our strategists should understand that air component of British and French core strengths is supposed to strike "enemy's centers of gravity" first in order to "break the spirit and sharp thinking of enemy commanders." But our Four Jackasses of the Apocalypse do not understand what is cheap, but effective. They think that it would be better to bomb often and randomly, thus terrorizing the population, not the enemy command. Really, Messrs. Cameron, Sarkozy and Longuet should call the Secretary General of Hezbollah Sheikh Naim Khaseem and ask him. He would explain...
They did not understand that?
Maybe they do, but I do not see that. Who is fighting on the ground at all? Besides, now funds for air war is almost at the end [many figures and quotes from some of ministerial statements which show that the Paris and London just couldn't cut the mustard, borrowing money for opeartion right and left]...
It's so hard?
Yes, Yes. And NATO countries - so far not all - are trying to jump off. They cease to invest. Especially after the runaway of Norwegians and Italians. And, keep in mind, that Norway and Italy were among those who at least did something, what did the other twenty? And now, the last four Norwegian Luftforsvaret F-16AM, which honestly and effectively have worked in Libya, this weekend made their last flights. In spite of all persuasions, Oslo said it would not "be able to continue, it is very hard." Mind you, Norway is not among those who needed to be persuaded to participate, until it was "clear" that Libya would be smeared in two or three weeks... And how would you compensate for these runaways? Well, London is always has a stash, it pulled four Tornado GR4s out of the closet, which will replace the Norwegians. But for how long? The British officers honestly say no. Her Majesty's army is tired of war and needed a rest.
What will happen to NATO?
Better ask: What can NATO do? Does it know what it can do? Carmen Romero, NATO representative, mutters such a garbage: "We've always said that a political solution is necessary to put an end to the crisis, but we will fight as long as it is necessary". "Gaddafi can not mock at us for long" - she said. Do you understand? This means that the Libyan leader is great and wise. The time is on his side...
Why?
Because NATO has come unglued. It's much vaunted unity under question, in September, when there's time to again extend the "deadline for a small and easy war", this kind of solution will not work. You'll see! The U.S. is slowly pushing the idea of a new unlimited mandate for NATO. "It would help us to continue to avoid procedural errors and to act as long as necessary", - said one of the NATO bigwigs. But, you know, this idea may very well not pass, there are no guarantees, and in some countries, the proposal still needs to be discussed in parliament. Some participants already are not eager to waste men and money ...
But the resignation and departure of Gaddafi remains an indispensable condition of peace talks?
Not anymore. The idea is that Muammar Gaddafi may stay in Libya "somewhere in the beautiful desert oasis" (sic) has been adopted even by militants. In actual fact, of course, the fate of Colonel Gaddafi is important to allies, he's promised to be punished, but there're no time for whims. Juppe doesn't attack Longuet anymore for such proposals as he ate his hat and prepared to listen to the terms on which the leader of the Great Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya agrees to leave. But the colonel is in no hurry to agree and report those terms, but every day now strengthens his regime in Tripoli. As a result, the British and the French will have to pay a high price - economically, I mean - for the stupidity and blindness of the Four Jackasses of the Apocalypse. In the future we may pay the full cost of the restoration of Libya, if not contribution.
