News Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[cobalt124]

1008: Libyan rebel spokesman Mustafa Gheriani in Tobruk tells the BBC that Benghazi is "fairly safe", having taken a heavy pounding from pro-Gaddafi forces on Saturday. "There's a few remnants of Gaddafi's embedded cells operating but for the most part they've been eliminated." He says that, so far, the intervention of western powers has been very effective. "We want to change a tyrant - this guy is a criminal and has to be judged as one," he adds

 

[cobalt124]

1101: A spokesman for the American military - Col Franklin Childress - has confirmed to the BBC reports that B-2 stealth bombers have dropped around 40 conventional bombs on Libyan targets. Col Childress said he could not specify which targets had been attacked. He said that Tomahawk missiles might continue to be used in the campaign

 

[nismaratwork]

But we weren't! The first to make a strike were the French; and not an arbitrary choice I would bet.

True... I'd also guess it's no coincidence. For all that this is a joint 'French-British' venture, the French are all over it, and the UK is providing... 4 jets.

 

[nismaratwork]

My turn to be confused:

0929: UK Chancellor George Osborne, who attended a meeting of the government's emergency Cobra committee before the first mission on Saturday - says the UN mandate authorising action in Libya is "very clear" - adding there are no plans for putting troops on the ground "at the moment".

There's being two or three comments on deploying of ground troops, I'm wondering "Whose?", as I have only heard national leaders say they would specifically not deploy ground troops. French? Arab League? U.S. and U.K. and the rebels themselves have said no to ground troops, which would be difficult anyway due to ongoing commitments elsewhere.

Understand that troops might include special operations to gather intel and target on the ground, but it's not the same as dropping an invasion force. Still, people hate even a technical lie, so this is butt-covering, and I suppose, honesty.

 

[cobalt124]

Understand that troops might include special operations to gather intel and target on the ground, but it's not the same as dropping an invasion force. Still, people hate even a technical lie, so this is butt-covering, and I suppose, honesty.

My reading of their words implies "invasion force". The wording seems to keep many options open, or is creating grey areas. Maybe it's just the nature of the beast.

 

[nismaratwork]

My reading of their words implies "invasion force". The wording seems to keep many options open, or is creating grey areas. Maybe it's just the nature of the beast.

I'd agree, except that an invasion force is the one thing explicitly forbidden by UN-1973... if that's ingored then all of this diplo-cover was for nothing.

 

[cobalt124]

BBC:

1219: Arab countries will be moving "military assets" to the region in the next few days, Dr Fox adds. He says this is vital to demonstrating that this is an international effort, not the west imposing its will.

 

[cobalt124]

It seems that William Hague, U.K. Foreign Secretary doesn't have much to say about all of this, he's possibly being kept out of it to some extent because of the recent farce with the helicopter he sent into Libya.

 

[Astronuc]

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.

Brilliant!

 

[nismaratwork]

I think that it's safe to say Tripoli will be leveled before the USA commits Vietnam-type troops counts.

 

[cobalt124]

BBC:

1450: More from US military chief Adm Mullen, who says planes from Qatar are now moving into position near Libya

 

[Gokul43201]

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.

Gee, Jimmy. I thought you were being serious with that post. And then I got to the last sentence.

 

[nismaratwork]

Al Aziziyah was hit by 2 cruise missiles, according to Nic Robertson on the scene (CNN), but not independently verified. As that is Tripoli-ish... I'm feeling good about post #130.

 

[cobalt124]

0011: An apparent missile strike has caused extensive damage to Col Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli. Journalists who were taken to the Bab al-Aziziya complex said a four-storey administrative building had been flattened. There has been no word of any casualties. The Pentagon has denied that Col Gaddafi is a target.

This is the place to hit.

 

[nismaratwork]

0011: An apparent missile strike has caused extensive damage to Col Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli. Journalists who were taken to the Bab al-Aziziya complex said a four-storey administrative building had been flattened. There has been no word of any casualties. The Pentagon has denied that Col Gaddafi is a target.

This is the place to hit.

Indeed... that should give the Libyan C&C something to think about, and maybe impetus to kill Ghaddafi et al rather than let the next missile land on THEM.

 

[nismaratwork]

Did those Tomahawks fired into Al Aziziyah have a low-yield warhead?... there seems to be more left of the compound and missile body than I would have expected...

 

[Al68]

The Pentagon has denied that Col Gaddafi is a target.

Why not? He's the problem, he should be the primary target.

On another note, why is it that the Colonel is still a Colonel after 30 years? He should have made General by now.

 

[FlexGunship]

Why not? He's the problem, he should be the primary target.

On another note, why is it that the Colonel is still a Colonel after 30 years? He should have made General by now.

You think he deserves a promotion? He has the tactical and strategic mind of a kumquat.

There's no perma-link to this image, so it might go AWOL in a little while. But I wanted to share this. It's a coalition air-strike on Libyan ground vehicles. New York Times reports there were "government vehicles" targeted. I'm not sure that I've heard of this yet. I understood all air operations to be in an effort to preserve the no-fly zone plus reconnaissance.

Prelude to ground war?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Interesting fact: The attack on Libya began eight years to the day after the invasion of Iraq began - March 19, 2003.

 

[FlexGunship]

Interesting fact: The attack on Libya began eight years to the day after the invasion of Iraq began - March 19, 2003.

Everyone gets restless after a long winter.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Everyone gets restless after a long winter.

Because Obama has proceeded with the war in Afghanistan, and because I support Obama, my left of left friend calls it MY war. He will NEVER forgive me for Libya. I might has well have dropped the bombs myself!

At least I can default to "George started it!", when he complains about Aghanistan.

 

[FlexGunship]

Because Obama has proceeded with the war in Afghanistan, and because I support Obama, my left of left friend calls it MY war. He will NEVER forgive me for Libya. I might has well have dropped the bombs myself!

I was wondering where to point the finger on this one! I'm actually kind of glad to see that Obama has the "guts" to stand-up in an international forum like this and show a bellicose side.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I was wondering where to point the finger on this one! I'm actually kind of glad to see that Obama has the "guts" to stand-up in an international forum like this and show a bellicose side.

Once I felt that I had begun to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed. But he is far more sensitive to the perceptions and concerns of our friends in the Middle East [and the surrounding area] than we have been in the past. This makes him look weak to some, but I think Libya shows that is not the case.

In this case, his caution caused delays. Unfortunate but wise, imo. He wanted to shore up support first.

 

[cobalt124]

Why not? He's the problem, he should be the primary target.

Taking this view, it seems Resolution 1973 (and resolutions in general) are vaguely worded to gain consensus, and hence have wriggle room to justify targetting Gadaffi.

 

[FlexGunship]

Once I felt that I began to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed.

Heh, I'm still not sure I understand him. He's slowly becoming more and more like former President Clinton which isn't fundamentally bad, but I feel like he ran on a lot of platforms that should've distanced himself from that. Surprised to see his handling of Guantanamo recently (not that I agree or disagree with it).

I'm curious, now, to see if Libya ever evolves into a real land war (involving the U.S. among other possible partners). This is what I'm waiting for:

http://www.bobsviews.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/obama-mission-accomplished.jpg

(Note: It's funny how easy it was to find this image.)

 

[cobalt124]

Once I felt that I began to understand the man, I never had any doubts he would do what was needed when needed. But he is far more sensitive to the perceptions and concerns of our friends in the Middle East than we have been in the past. This makes him look weak to some, but I think Libya shows that is not the case.

He doesn't look weak to me, he looks like he's doing the right thing. Perceptions in the U.S. are totally different though, I suspect.

 

[cobalt124]

BBC:

0833: The Guardian is running a piece entitled "Libya crisis may save Nicolas Sarkozy from electoral humiliation". Jonathan Freedland, the newspaper's correspondent in Paris, says the French president certainly needs something to prevent him coming third in next year's election.

Would Sarkozy start this to enhance his reputation domestically? What reason did he have for making a stand? Oil? Principle?

Also read that the UAE have "downgraded" from military involvement to humanitarian aid.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

BBC:

0833: The Guardian is running a piece entitled "Libya crisis may save Nicolas Sarkozy from electoral humiliation". Jonathan Freedland, the newspaper's correspondent in Paris, says the French president certainly needs something to prevent him coming third in next year's election.

Would Sarkozy start this to enhance his reputation domestically? What reason did he have for making a stand? Oil? Principle?

Also read that the UAE have "downgraded" from military involvement to humanitarian aid.

I would bet that we insisted that the French strike first. France has a long history of straddling the line or opposing US actions. On the face of things at least, it appeared to be a clear statement to the international community that we are all in this one together.

It wouldn't at all surprise me if this idea came directly from Obama.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

I'm curious, now, to see if Libya ever evolves into a real land war (involving the U.S. among other possible partners). This is what I'm waiting for:

No doubt we will do everything possible to avoid that one. I am reminded of the quote that first really grabbed my attention. This situation may play out as a chance to see if he was 100% correct. We already know that he got most of it right.

I know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military is a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

- Barack Obama, October, 2002
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16903253/page/2/

Emphasis mine.

 

[Skrew]

Ehm, I proabbly shouldn't post this but I can't resist.

1. Is there proof that the rebels aren't largely Islamic radicals, and that islamic radicals won't be able to take over the movement.

2. Is there proof that the post Gaddafi government will be able to better manage the country and won't become a muslim theocracy.

We all know how the last two middle-east "liberations" went, it's highly amusing to me that anyone thinks this one will go better.