News Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[mugaliens]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001".

This is a good thing.

 

[AlephZero]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001".

This is a good thing.

Hmm... I would take "cease fire" = "good opportunity for Gadaffi to regroup and redeploy forces without being shot at".

A nice cartoon in a UK national newpaper today. An arab in a command-and-control center answering the phone. "Which emergency service you do require: fire, police, ambulance, or foreign intervention?"

 

[russ_watters]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42145571/ns/world_news-mideastn_africa/?gt1=43001".

This is a good thing.

Why is it good? The article title is "Fighting rages on despite Libya Cease-Fire Declaration"...

This is a very smart (impressively smart) move by Ghadaffi. It means several things:
1. Military intervention by the UN would be an act of aggression against a foreign government that isn't at war with anyone (if they stop their advances -- or maybe they can just blame the continued fighting on non-government loyalists).
2. Rebels can't attack Ghadaffi's forces without being the aggressors (they may still want to).
3. A cease-fire means stopping the revolution and that's not what the US/UN/Rebels want. The best the rebels can hope for if the cease-fire holds and hostilities end is that if they lay down their weapons, Ghadaffi won't round them up and execute them and that things just go back to the way they were before the revolution started. There is no upside for them here, only several different downsides.

Ghadaffi is calling our bluff, laying his cards on the table and making it our move. If we want him out, we have to go knock him out in an aggressive war.

 

[nismaratwork]

Why is it good? The article title is "Fighting rages on despite Libya Cease-Fire Declaration"...

This is a very smart (impressively smart) move by Ghadaffi. It means several things:
1. Military intervention by the UN would be an act of aggression against a foreign government that isn't at war with anyone (if they stop their advances -- or maybe they can just blame the continued fighting on non-government loyalists).
2. Rebels can't attack Ghadaffi's forces without being the aggressors (they may still want to).
3. A cease-fire means stopping the revolution and that's not what the US/UN/Rebels want. The best the rebels can hope for if the cease-fire holds and hostilities end is that if they lay down their weapons, Ghadaffi won't round them up and execute them and that things just go back to the way they were before the revolution started. There is no upside for them here, only several different downsides.

Ghadaffi is calling our bluff, laying his cards on the table and making it our move. If we want him out, we have to go knock him out in an aggressive war.

'All necessary means'...


I say targeted attacks and all necessary prep for an NFZ first, ask for diplomatic clarification later. The only thing explicity out was invasion, and who wants that? I hope the rebels don't 'cease-fire', which makes it impossible to withdraw without cover. If the rebels want, they can force Ghaddafi's hand, and we can take any excuse with such broad language.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

It seems to me that he got smart with Reagan as well... We all know how that one ended.

 

[nismaratwork]

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

Reports would seem to support that this isn't a bluff, I suspect that there won't be a working AA RADAR installation in Libya within 6-12 hours, and if we're smart we'll target armor that's on its way back to Tripoli before it can be stowed again.

Edit: The only thing Reagan did wrong there, is not send another wing over to clean up after we missed Ghaddafi.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Edit: The only thing Reagan did wrong there, is not send another wing over to clean up after we missed Ghaddafi.

Yes, but Gh sure did get quiet for the next twenty years or so. He was never the same after that.

I always felt badly for his kid, who paid for the sins of the father.

 

[nismaratwork]

Yes, but Gh sure did get quiet for the next twenty years or so. He was never the same after that.

Well, the first thing he did after that was to blow Pan Am out of the sky... then he got quiet.

Remember:

Berlin Disco(Gh)
Al Aziziyah (Reagan)
Pan Am (Gh)

Truly, if he'd died, I can't imagine how much suffering would have been avoided.

What I want to know is that now we've backed him into a corner, are we going to secure or bomb/incinerate his cache of mustard agent? We don't want that being sold off, or worse, put into a crop-duster.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Well, the first thing he did after that was to blow Pan Am out of the sky... then he got quiet.

Remember:

Berlin Disco(Gh)
Al Aziziyah (Reagan)
Pan Am (Gh)

Whoops, you sayin I'm gettin old?

Yeah, I was thinking Pan Am came before the [Reagan's] bombing. I do distinctly remember his virtually disappearing from the face of the Earth after something we did... I thought it was the bombing.

 

[nismaratwork]

Whoops, you sayin I'm gettin old?

Yeah, I was thinking Pan Am came before the bombing. I do distinctly remember his virtually disappearing from the face of the Earth after something we did... I thought it was the bombing.

Hey, I would never sass my elders.


Kidding aside, most people seem hazy on the time-line... I think because the bombing in Berlin is often forgotten. Certainly the man changed after we bombed him... he was a sociopath before, but he became erratic and... different after. Trauma... anger... or some kind of TBI... it's a testament to a need to finish what we begin, swiftly.

Heh, figures you'd find one of the few major actions of Reagan's I agree with.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Heh, figures you'd find one of the few major actions of Reagan's I agree with.

You mean, dad?

 

[nismaratwork]

You mean, dad?

Yeah yeah... keep it up wise guy.

 

[russ_watters]

Re Russ:

Our bluff? Who says anyone is bluffing?

The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

The "bluff" is that we're want to remove him/help the rebels remove him. He's called us on it, saying essentially: 'you want me gone? now you have to violate your own force-authorizing resolution in order to do it.'

You don't think Bush really wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions against him, do you...?

I see nothing unexpected here. Ghadaffi is acting exactly as we would expect.

Murderous dictators almost never back down. Their arrogance almost always overrules their brains. He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam, Hitler.

 

[nismaratwork]

The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

You don't think Bush really wanted Saddam to comply with the UN's resolutions against him, do you...? Murderous dictators almost never back down. He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam.

I think one element is a saving grace here: the rebels are going to move and they're not subject to a DMZ, and have no air assets. Ghaddafi can't really afford to lose all of the ground he's lost, and "all means" includes strikes on his armor if he tries to use it, or shelling/mortars.

There is also the possiblity that with the international community looming, and no real hope for his regime, Ghaddafi will be largely abandoned, and (I hope) killed.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

He said he'd fight to the death to keep his rule and I expected him to do so. See: Saddam, Hitler.

More likely I think, one of his own people will take him out.

In either case, I think the practical goal [though not the best outcome] is to neuter him, not kill him. This may allow time for the revolution to regain momentum.

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.

 

[cobalt124]

The world community wants Ghadaffi gone, but the UN resolution just demands a cease fire and an end to the abuse of civilians. So if Ghadaffi really ceases-fire, then he's fulfilled the resolution's key demands and the military response in the resolution shouldn't happen. In other words, by immediately complying with the resolution, he's forcing us to violate it in order to get what we want.

This is exactly what I thought Gadaffi would do, as he could afford to play a waiting game, but from what the rebels say, fighting continues and if true he is bluffing. Either way, he is an example of unaccountable wickedness and he needs to be removed from power.

 

[jreelawg]

What it seamed to me was that the UN resolution authorizes the use of force to protect civilians. Does it authorize the use of force to protect the rebels? There is a difference between peaceful protesters and armed rebels.

Has Gadaffi been indicted?

I think a strong message to send would be, to demand that Gadaffi loyalists hand him over to be arrested and tried. Make it clear that those who help Gadaffi will be also charged and tried when his regime inevitably falls.

 

[nismaratwork]

More likely I think, one of his own people will take him out.

In either case, I think the practical goal [though not the best outcome] is to neuter him, not kill him. This may allow time for the revolution to regain momentum.

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.

I would generally agree that he'd be killed by his own, but with is sons and daughter likely in control, a decapitating action would have to go well beyond Ghaddafi himself.

I would tend towards a limited scorched Earth policy for armor not held by rebels (assuming intel can be provided), and using the hellfire missiles that are very effective and kill that family to the last.

I look at Baby Doc, now Aristide... some people need killing, banishment and neutering as you say, is not enough. The point about the AL, I am in complete agreement with.

 

[russ_watters]

President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

Obama's lack of leadership is glaring yet again. He's taken heat throughout this event for being wishy-washy and not leading, but this is just too much. In a brief, token show of leadership, he asked for and got a UN resolution for a no-fly zone, but now he's not going to lead that effort? What the hell?!

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

Criticism from Gingrich:

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich launched another zinger at President Obama on Thursday by channeling President Theodore Roosevelt who famously said "Walk softly and carry a big stick."

Of the president, Gingrich said "Theodore Roosevelt said you have to walk softly and carry a big stick. This is a guy who talks loudly and has no stick."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.co...-loudly-has-no-stick/?iref=allsearch&hpt=Sbin

Note: Gingrich said that before Obama gave his speech this afternoon saying he wasn't going to support the NFZ with weapons.

I disagree with him on the first part, though: Obama talks eloquently when discussing vague generalities and idealistic principles, but when it comes to leadership, he talks mumblingly, not loudly. From downplaying terrorist attacks to giving confusing and contradictory messages to Egypt and Libya, he's proving what I always believed and often said: being a great public speaker is not the same as being a great leader. Much to my shock, he was able to convince people the Earth was flat with a few of his campaign promises, but I expected that when forced to start dealing with realities that require leadership, he'd start fumbling.

 

[cobalt124]

I would generally agree that he'd be killed by his own, but with is sons and daughter likely in control, a decapitating action would have to go well beyond Ghaddafi himself.

Yes, I thought at first removing Gadaffi would be sufficient, but it seems that his family and those close to it would need removing as well, root and branch.

This UN resolution has a very real chance of doing more harm than good. It gave Ghadaffi an internationally-sanctioned way out of the crisis that preserves his rule.

I share that fear too. I can't comment on Obamas performance in this, but the problem he has is that he cannot be seen to be taking the lead on this, lest it brings to the fore anti-U.S. opinion in the Arab League, so in that sense I believe he is doing the right thing by letting other nations take the lead. That does show good leadership IMO.

 

[cobalt124]

It looks like Gadaffis carried on fighting the rebels and the French have gone into action:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12795971

EDIT: French and possibly Italian fighters in operation, Gadaffi troops attempting to surround Benghazi.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

CNN Headline: "French jets flying over Libya"

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I share that fear too. I can't comment on Obamas performance in this, but the problem he has is that he cannot be seen to be taking the lead on this, lest it brings to the fore anti-U.S. opinion in the Arab League, so in that sense I believe he is doing the right thing by letting other nations take the lead. That does show good leadership IMO.

Indeed, it beats running off half-cocked and starting war without the support of the Arab and other nations, which would surely be viewed as an abuse of US power in the region. That would be playing right into the hands of Ghadafi and other terrorists. We've fallen for that one before. Luckily Obama is too smart for that.

Discretion is the better part of valor - a lesson lost on our leadership in the past.

 

[cobalt124]

A French plane has opened fire on a truck in Benghazi. Its started.

EDIT: About 20 planes involved at the moment.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

CNN reports that about 20 French fighter jets are now patrolling the skies over Libya. [Whoops, I see that you just added that part]

Having the French take the offensive is a very good move, imo.

 

[cobalt124]

Sorry, snuck an edit in! It's going to be interesting how this unfolds, not having the U.S. take the lead, and having the Arab League on board. It could bode well for future international relations, potentially.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Sorry, snuck an edit in! It's going to be interesting how this unfolds, not having the U.S. take the lead, and having the Arab League on board. It could bode well for future international relations, potentially.

Yes, and help to position us as liberators [our true intent] and partners, and not as invaders.

 

[petergreat]

What will be the eventual outcome if Gaddafi does accept ceasefire?

It looks like that the allied force won't attack unless Gaddafi refuses ceasefire, which raises the question, what if Gaddafi decides to accept ceasefire? If ceasefire becomes permanent, will Lybia be split into two countries?

 

[cobalt124]

From BBC Live News:

French aircraft have destroyed four Libyan tanks in air strikes to the south-west of Benghazi, Al-Jazeera television has reported

 

[Ivan Seeking]

It seems clear to me that he can only maintain power through the use of force and intimidation. Take that away and he's just another paper tiger.

My hope is that the freedom fevor, along with international support for the rebel government, will eventually assure his fate as a bad memory.

 

[nismaratwork]

Very good... and about damned time. It seems that the european powers have taken the responsibility they have to... now the AL needs to step up and provide air support and targeting/battlespace intel.

 

[cobalt124]

Hopefully that will happen and the Libyan people and the Arab League and the world will be rid of a power wielding Gadaffi. The pessimist in me can't quite see how the stalemate will be avoided, though, along with Gadaffi being a slippery, cunning <words fail me> who will stop at nothing to get his own way.

 

[nismaratwork]

Hopefully that will happen and the Libyan people and the Arab League and the world will be rid of a power wielding Gadaffi. The pessimist in me can't quite see how the stalemate will be avoided, though, along with Gadaffi being a slippery, cunning <words fail me> who will stop at nothing to get his own way.

This is why I think either Ivan's result will occur (one of MG's own killing him), or that the force in place will have to seriously bomb Al Aziziyah and Tripoli, or 'send in the boys'. I really am all for assasination in this case...

 

[cobalt124]

BBC Live:

Activist group Liberty4Libya tweets: "#Libya #Zintan, heavy shelling into the city of #Zintan, #Gaddafi troops' tanks advancing under the fire cover

Zintan is 160 miles southwest of Tripoli.

 

[nismaratwork]

Activist group Liberty4Libya tweets: "#Libya #Zintan, heavy shelling into the city of #Zintan, #Gaddafi troops' tanks advancing under the fire cover

Zintan is 160 miles southwest of Tripoli.

This is why the language allows for targeting armor and supply lines, not just air assets.

Yes, civilians and the oppositon WILL die, it's part of war, but it's not going to be ANYTHING compared to doing nothing. The only way to ensure that this is not the tactic of the next century, is to show that human shields are not shields at all.

Libya asked for help; I hope they knew what it was they were getting.

 

[cobalt124]

From what I've read the operation is over Benghazi and the surrounding area. Zintan is at the other end of the country. Presumably the U.N. resolution operates all over Libya and hopefully Gadaffis forces can be stopped there as well. Human shielding is a desperate and evil tactic, and it is so easy to sit here and type, but for the sake of the long run Nismar, I would say that you are right.

EDIT: BBC - A US defence official tells Reuters that the US Navy has three submarines in the Mediterranean preparing for operations in Libya.

 

[AlephZero]

Obama is demanding that the Arabs take the lead so this isn't just another US invasion.

I assume the US is supporting the Saudis invading Bahrain as well. But I guess it's important not to give people the idea you are taking sides...

I see a news report that Gaza is taking another pop at Israel with some rockets. Now isn't that just a truly amazing coincidence...

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I assume the US is supporting the Saudis invading Bahrain as well. But I guess it's important not to give people the idea you are taking sides...

I see a news report that Gaza is taking another pop at Israel with some rockets. Now isn't that just a truly amazing coincidence...

Was there something on-topic here?

 

[Astronuc]

Clinton: Fears of Libyan Clinton: Fears of Libyan 'unspeakable atrocities'
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/eu_us_libya_clinton

The world will not "sit idly by," she said at a news conference, amid fears that Gadhafi will commit "unspeakable atrocities" against his people.

"We have every reason to fear that left unchecked Gadhafi would commit unspeakable atrocities," she told reporters after an international conference at which world powers launched enforcement of the no-fly zone.
. . . .

I suspect that Gadhafi's forces have been committing murder (and other atrocities) from the beginning. The world should have acted before his troops rolled out of Tripoli.

 

[cobalt124]

I assume the US is supporting the Saudis invading Bahrain as well. But I guess it's important not to give people the idea you are taking sides...

All they are doing is supporting U.N. Resolution 1973. For once (it seems) they are supporting the U.N. rather than using it to force their own agenda.

I see a news report that Gaza is taking another pop at Israel with some rockets. Now isn't that just a truly amazing coincidence...

I don't see the point you are making here.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

CNN reports that 110 US cruise missiles [some from a British sub] have been fired into Libya.

 

[cobalt124]

I suspect that Gadhafi's forces have been committing murder (and other atrocities) from the beginning. The world should have acted before his troops rolled out of Tripoli.

Once the Arab League announced their support, the U.N. did respond quickly to France, the U.K. and The Lebanon. Hopefully it's not too late.

 

[cobalt124]

CNN reports that 110 US cruise missiles [some from a British sub] have been fired into Libya.

BBC:

The Pentagon says 20 sites were targeted in the initial missile attacks, and these were "just the first phase of what will likely be a multi-phased, military operation designed to enforce the United Nations' resolution and deny the Libyan regime the ability to use force against its own people

 

[russ_watters]

CNN reports that 110 US cruise missiles [some from a British sub] have been fired into Libya.

Well now I'm thoroughly confused. I wasn't terribly surprised when Ghadaffi said he was ceasing-fire and then didn't, but Obama said he wasn't going to use any offensive weapons, but he has. It's not that I disagree with the action, but did he change his mind in the past few hours or did he lie? Heck, I'm not even against him lying as a diversion, but I don't see the point of this one.

 

[cobalt124]

but Obama said he wasn't going to use any offensive weapons, but he has.

The U.N. resolution states (paraphrasing here) any action necessary to protect cvilian people. I heard Obama say he backed the resolution, if he said he wasn't going to use offensive weapons, that does seem odd. But I don't see anything happening that is outsde the U.N. resolution 1973. I don't see how he could not use offensive weapons to see throught he resolution.

EDIT: found a better quote on the wording of the resolution:

resolution 1973 mandates "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.

 

[klusener]

Well now I'm thoroughly confused. I wasn't terribly surprised when Ghadaffi said he was ceasing-fire and then didn't, but Obama said he wasn't going to use any offensive weapons, but he has. It's not that I disagree with the action, but did he change his mind in the past few hours or did he lie? Heck, I'm not even against him lying as a diversion, but I don't see the point of this one.

The strikes were aimed at Libyan air defense targets which had to be taken out in order to set up the no-fly zone. I don't recall Obama, or any other government official, stating that such offensive strikes would be not be used in the process of enforcing the provisions of the UN mandate, a key element of which is the no-fly zone.

 

[edward]

The strikes were aimed at Libyan air defense targets which had to be taken out in order to set up the no-fly zone. I don't recall Obama, or any other government official, stating that such offensive strikes would be not be used in the process of enforcing the provisions of the UN mandate, a key element of which is the no-fly zone.

Here is a link for that:

http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-new...k-missiles-fired-at-libya-20110320-1c1sq.html

 

[nismaratwork]

Well now I'm thoroughly confused. I wasn't terribly surprised when Ghadaffi said he was ceasing-fire and then didn't, but Obama said he wasn't going to use any offensive weapons, but he has. It's not that I disagree with the action, but did he change his mind in the past few hours or did he lie? Heck, I'm not even against him lying as a diversion, but I don't see the point of this one.

Here I'm confused, he said that we'd act in a support role... the French mapped the area, and we fired using our GPS network on the designated targets (presumably). We always said this would be the first step; neutralizing AA/RADAR capability.

I'd add, all I heard promised was no American combat troops on the ground... nothing saying we couldn't fire on targets mapped or otherwise designated by the French and British. We're not 'in the lead'... and that's precisely what this kind of strike establishes.

edit: This would be a nice time for the AL and Israel to get along... HaMossad could hunt down and kill the Ghaddafis while they were still in Tripoli... maybe save some lives before this protracts.

 

[russ_watters]

I discussed and linked it in post #69, guys, and it comes from the speech he made yesterday:

Obama trying to limit military involvement in Libya

President Barack Obama is trying to limit the United States' role in enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya to support aircraft only and is very reluctant to commit any offensive U.S. firepower, a senior U.S. official familiar with the military planning discussions said Friday.

"We will provide the unique capabilities that we can bring to bear to stop the violence against civilians, including enabling our European allies and Arab partners to effectively enforce a no-fly zone," the president said in a nationally televised statement about U.S. military action.

"The president chose his words deliberately and carefully, and you should be guided by them," the official said. "He is very sensitive that this not be a U.S. operation...

Asked about the "unique capabilities" the president talked about contributing, the official said that at least for now, they would not involve combat fighters or bombers but instead would include AWACS, intelligence-gathering drones and other intelligence assets, and refueling and air traffic control. [emphasis added]

http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

[edit] Er... I must not have read the whole article, because it also says:

The U.S. official said that the U.S. might use cruise missiles and that although the president was very reluctant to commit to any offensive U.S. weapons, he understands that it is likely the U.S. will be called on to do so.

It is a little contradictory, though.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

David Cameron, British PM, assures us that Libya will not be another Iraq. Libyan leader Khadafy (aka Qaddafi) has expressed concern that Libya will be another Viet Nam. This is a real posibility since, according to American officials, Iraq is not another Viet Nam. Calls to Viet Nam asking for comment have not been returned. Afghanistan has warned that they will not accept being another Libya. However, Libya has assured Kabul that Korea will take precedence for being another Libya. Meanwhile, Canada (another USA) has indicated that they will welcome to their shores, people objecting to any country becoming another Viet Nam. The UN passed another resolution against Israel to the satisfaction of all.