Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter nismaratwork
  • Start date Start date
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
Sign up Log in
327 replies · 49K views
Physics news on Phys.org
Astronuc said:
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.
 
Ivan Seeking said:
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
 
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
russ_watters said:
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 through he resolution.

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

resolution 1973 mandates "all necessary measures" to protect civilians.
 
Last edited:
russ_watters said:
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.
 
klusener said:
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
 
russ_watters said:
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.
 
I discussed and linked it in post #69, guys, and it comes from the speech he made yesterday:
CNN said:
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.
 
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.
 
russ_watters said:
I discussed and linked it in post #69, guys, and it comes from the speech he made yesterday: http://www.cnn.com/2011/POLITICS/03/18/obama.no.fly/index.html?hpt=T1

Russ, I think that our extremely finely targeted system for anti-radar/AA is just that, along with C&C support through AWACS, Aegis systems, and more.

I don't think there's a contradiction, and less so when you consider that the targets were just that; RADAR/AA, the destruction of which has only one benefit: the support of european and other allied efforts.

We're going to have to wait and see if this is a trend, or if this is truly what I described.
 
"trying to limit", "very reluctant", "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",

Picking out parts of Russes link, Obama isn't directly saying he won't use firepower. My reading of it is he will, but that he is ultra sensitive to being seen as leading this, so is wording it as he does.
 
By definition, we also have to be the first to strike... we're best at removing AA assets. It's a very flashy media-friendly event, but it could be misconstrued as us leading. It's harder to explain that France took the brunt of the risk by flying recon over active air defenses, we just provided the ammo and a bit more.

From here I hope our major presence is psy-ops and C&C for air... I'd hope the AL would do more, but I don't expect it.
 
BBC (earlier today):

The coalition's long-term aim of the military action in Libya is to overthrow Col Gaddafi, Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to the country, tells the BBC. He adds: "I'm not against that, but as a war aim it's not adequate. What is going to come in Gaddafi's place?"

If this is true, it certainly isn't part of the U.N. mandate, but, practically speaking, must be the best outcome for all concerned, save one, and those who cling to him.
 
BBC:

2304: LibyanYouthMovement tweets: "ALL, yes ALL Gaddafi forces in ZINTAN have joined the #Feb17 revolution, Zintan now fully armed and ready #Libya #gaddaficrimes"
 
An AL contribution:

An un-named French official tells the AFP news agency that the United Arab Emirates has pledged 24 aircraft to the coalition and Qatar between four and six.
 
cobalt124 said:
An AL contribution:

An un-named French official tells the AFP news agency that the United Arab Emirates has pledged 24 aircraft to the coalition and Qatar between four and six.

Hmmm... I'll offer congrats when I see them fly and use munitions.
 
nismaratwork said:
Hmmm... I'll offer congrats when I see them fly and use munitions.

Yes, thinking about it, that may be a giant step to take, and may just be a token gesture.
 
BBC:

Reports from Benghazi say rebels have regained control of the city after driving out forces loyal to Col Gaddafi. The rebels say roads to the east are clogged with car loads of people fleeing
 
cobalt124 said:
BBC (earlier today):

The coalition's long-term aim of the military action in Libya is to overthrow Col Gaddafi, Oliver Miles, the former British ambassador to the country, tells the BBC. He adds: "I'm not against that, but as a war aim it's not adequate. What is going to come in Gaddafi's place?"

If this is true, it certainly isn't part of the U.N. mandate, but, practically speaking, must be the best outcome for all concerned, save one, and those who cling to him.

the really interesting thing is, france no longer recognizes gaddafi as the legitimate head of state of libya. this happened several days ago in fact. they've already chosen the next government.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12699183

this has a lot of interesting implications, doesn't it? it's generally recognized that governments don't go out to assassinate heads of state. even the US outlawed it a while back.

also, there's a lot of oil contracts on the line here. spain and italy were the old regime profiteers, and stand to lose quite a lot. why so much silence from them? are the brits and french about to come in and take it from them? or at least the lion's share? it's all very fascinating.
 
Proton Soup said:
the really interesting thing is, france no longer recognizes gaddafi as the legitimate head of state of libya. this happened several days ago in fact. they've already chosen the next government.

Yes, I'm left wondering why France did that, it was a very courageous? move.

Proton Soup said:
this has a lot of interesting implications, doesn't it? it's generally recognized that governments don't go out to assassinate heads of state. even the US outlawed it a while back.

Gadaffi doesn't have to be assassinated, though he may insist that will happen. He has the choice of stepping down (fat chance), then the problem is who would have him. Antarctica?

Proton Soup said:
also, there's a lot of oil contracts on the line here. spain and italy were the old regime profiteers, and stand to lose quite a lot. why so much silence from them? are the brits and french about to come in and take it from them? or at least the lion's share? it's all very fascinating.

Forgive me, I'm very naive, and I hope this isn't primarily to do with oil. It's a miracle there is actually a consensus to do something about Gadaffi.
 
cobalt124 said:
Yes, I'm left wondering why France did that, it was a very courageous? move.

Gadaffi doesn't have to be assassinated, though he may insist that will happen. He has the choice of stepping down (fat chance), then the problem is who would have him. Antarctica?

if you think back to iraq, then you may remember that we were careful not to target Saddam Hussein directly. or at least that is what we said. and then we captured him and he was tried, convicted, and executed.

Forgive me, I'm very naive, and I hope this isn't primarily to do with oil. It's a miracle there is actually a consensus to do something about Gadaffi.

it's no more a miracle than doing something about Hussein. in both cases, there are assets at stake. and cutting off an irreplaceable source of prime petroleum at a time when the world economy is already shaky may be giving arab governments pause, as well. the last thing they want is even higher food prices. that would mean more citizens protesting in the streets for government reforms.
 
cobalt124 said:
Gadaffi doesn't have to be assassinated, though he may insist that will happen. He has the choice of stepping down (fat chance), then the problem is who would have him. Antarctica?

I'm thinking it's high time they send another man to the moon... Spacesuit not required.
 
mugaliens said:
I'm thinking it's high time they send another man to the moon... Spacesuit not required.

I have to say, I truly believe that Ghaddafi has to die before this can end, whether it's assasination by his own people, exposure through mass defections, or direct action from outside of Libya, he needs to die, and his children.

@Proton: Remember that Iraq and Hussein were US allies, and a means to buffer the Arab world from Iran. We had an interest in him... ghaddafi is only a hinderance. He's no longer a recognized head of state, and his children even less so; he's a dead man walking. I'd add, he's not Hussein, he won't hide, he'll die first and in doing so he's the type to take as many with him as possible. This is a textbook example of needing to decapitate the leadership completely, and allow some kind of natural order to return. We can't hope to guide Libya's diverse tribes, only free them, and the quickest way to that is to remove all semblance of central leadership.

You destroy a cult of personality by killing its head, and then removing the limbs that would otherwise function without the head. In this case, Ghaddafi is the figurehead at this point, and his children the limbs; they need to die, unless by some miracle they surrender, in which case they die in a few years.
 
Jimmy Snyder said:
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.

One of your best works, Jimmy :biggrin:.
 
mugaliens said:
I'm thinking it's high time they send another man to the moon... Spacesuit not required.

I'm being far too kind. I thought about a manned mission to Mars, and there was that plan for the one way "heroic" mission, and it did include the spacesuit.
 
BBC:

0138: Clovis Maksoud, a former Arab League representative to the UN, tells the BBC that Arab states will soon join the operation in Libya: "They will do it within the framework of the United Nations. Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, perhaps Jordan, will join in one form or another in whatever the leadership of the UN operation requires. There is a willingness to participate in whatever capacity they can. Already they have deployed some of their aircraft to help the coalition."

The Pentagon says it will transfer command of Operation Odyssey Dawn in the coming days, almost certainly to Nato. But that will happen only after the Americans have established that the first wave of attacks has done sufficient damage to Libya's air defences for a no fly zone to be safely patrolled."
 
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.
 
Shami Chakrabarti, director of UK human rights organisation Liberty said the current action was justified. But she added: "There seems to be a lack of clarity about the difference between any ground forces at all, and an occupying force.