Libya: Rebels Being Slaughtered, no fly zone

[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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[cobalt124]

"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.

 

[nismaratwork]

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.

 

[cobalt124]

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.

 

[cobalt124]

BBC:

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