The US, UK and France have attacked Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in the first action to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone.
Military officials are said to be assessing the damage after at least 110 missiles were fired by the US and UK.
After one attack, some 14 bodies were lying near destroyed vehicles near the rebel-held city of Benghazi after strikes by French planes, Reuters says.
A lamentable development. Have we learned nothing from Iraq and Afghanistan … or Vietnam, for that matter? Apparently not. You cannot win a war remotely by using bombs and missiles. Ultimately, it will require troops on the ground, and the local people soon come to resent the occupying army and begin to oppose it.
Above all, why are we doing this and not the Arab League? They would rather leave us to do the dirty work and then wash their hands of it if it goes awry. You cannot sort out the problems of other nations for them. Where this has worked (eg Bosnia Herzegovina, to a lesser extent Liberia) it has been regional powers taking responsibility for their own region.
#1. I agree with most of your comment, especially putting U.S. troops on the ground. That would indeed be a tragic mistake but, I just don’t believe we can leave a people to be slaughtered by a truly evil tyrant. Help them yes, occupy their country NO!
1. Terry Tee[blockquote] Above all, why are we doing this and not the Arab League? [/blockquote] There really is a significant European interest in this conflict. They are concerned that a brutal civil war in Libya would induce a flood of several hundred thousand refugees into Europe. In effect, the Europeans are trying to keep the Libyans in Libya. Europeans can’t very well say that out loud, and so they have focused on the (very real) humanitarian crisis. That is not to say that humanitarian concerns are being used as a beard, but it does explain why Libya rates this level of intervention while (say) Madagascar would not.
As far as Arab intervention is concerned, the only Arab power that could intervene is Egypt, and they have their own problems. Occupying the country means you have to govern it and reconstitute it. You can’t just smash the military & civil structure and then leave. Doing so would make the situation on your border that much more difficult. It’s the huge cost of intervention that nations are loathe to pay, especially poor nations like Egypt. The Egyptians don’t want to deal with governing the Palestinians in Gaza let alone the whole of Libya. (btw, as an aside, that should tell you what the true objective of any Arab invasion of Israel would be.)
The Europeans have the capability to occupy and reconstitute Libya, but not the will. They are trying to effect change ‘on the cheap’ by acting as a tactical Air Force for the side they favor. Assertions that airstrikes will be used only to protect civilians is a beard. Any tank in the hands of Gaddaffi loyalists will be considered a threat, and will become a target. They aren’t trying to protect civilians. They are trying to help the rebels win on the assumption the rebellion will produce a government more likely to keep Libyans in Libya. I personally think the European strategy has a greater chance of inducing the exact outcome they are trying to avoid.
Having said all that, I want to say one other thing. Not necessarily to Terry Lee, but because of the stuff I have written the past week. The Brits, and the Danes, and the Canadians, and even the Fr … (cough) … the Fre… (cough, cough) … and that country Lafayette was from are our allies. They are the good guys in all this, and they currently have men flying in harm’s way. So I hope all my predictions are wrong. At the end of the Vietnam war, a bunch of people in the US Congress made sure that South Vietnam would succumb to invasion in order to conclusively prove the futility of the Vietnam war after the fact. It was the most contemptible act ever committed by the US government. Certain Americans decided to throw a couple million people to the murderous communists (and in the process retro-actively invalidate the shed blood of every American who served in that war) just so they could say they were right. We shouldn’t do that to our allies. It’s time to wish them well in their endeavors. Those of us who oppose this intervention should not be hoping for its failure just so we can say we were right.
carl
Carl, that is a helpful analysis. I agree about the fear of a great tidal wave of refugees. There have been many reports of fresh arrivals on Lampedusa and other Italian islands in the mid-Med. On a recent visit to Malta I was startled at the growing African (and Muslim) presence in such a tiny and overcrowded island nation, mostly people who had launched themselves from N. African shores in rickety boats. But the same refugee problem would apply even more strongly to Egypt – and Tunisia is already struggling with I gather over 100,000 Libyan refugees. As regards Arab powers capable of intervening, you overlook (a) Morocco, with a French-equipped air force of aging Mirages (have the F-16s arrived yet?) and troops hardened from conflict in Western Sahara (b) Jordan (who would have a score or two to settle regarding Libyan housing of Black September figures; the Israelis would be only too glad to grant overflying rights); most potently of all there is (c) Turkey, non-Arab but secularly Muslim. Lots of scope there I would have thought for intervention. For that matter although Tunisia and Egypt are trying to figure out what next politically, I think their armed forces would be capable of swift and decisive action. BTW I should not have mentioned Vietnam – it distracts and divides. No need to adduce.
I certainly don’t hope for failure in this enterprise. Thank you for remembering that we are traditionally allies, even those cheese-eating folks to the north of Spain and west of Germany. But the real crunch question is surely: what would victory look like? We could not answer that question when we went into Iraq, we could not answer it when we went into Afghanistan, and we cannot answer it for Libya. Ergo we should have stayed out.
The simple answer, which carl and others do seem determined not to accept, is that Britain, France and others [UAE and Quater are on the way and Italy is also sending planes] are intervening in order to stop this dreadful man from slaughtering even more Libyans. That is the reason – to save millions of lives after this tyrant has recently [according conservative UN estimates] murdered 3,000 people.
Nonetheless, the reality is that Gaddaffi sent tanks and troops into Misrata today who are running amok, and snipers have been placed on rooftops by him to slaughter people. There is also a Gaddaffi onslaught inside Benghazi today where more people are being killed.
Prayers for the Libyan people and for delivery for them from this wicked slaughter by Gaddaffi.
5. Pageantmaster:
European claims to purity in this matter would have been greatly enhanced if Europe in general had not been so opposed to the removal of Sadaam Hussein. After all, Hussein made Gaddaffi look like Chaplain’s “Great Dictator.” Yet (for example) the French were busy at the time selling arms to Hussein and buying his oil, even as they opposed American efforts. And yet now they are all hot to save Libyans from Gaddaffi on purely humanitarian grounds? What am I supposed to think?
carl
So how long will the Arab League remain behind the military action?
Hard to tell from this statement, but it might not be long.
#6 carl
You are right – we do have to look at whether our past policy of arming these dictators to the teeth is a good idea, or even in our economic interests. If the balance sheet of the money spent by the Iraq coalition is set against the receipts from defence sales to Hussein from France, the US and the UK, I am doubtful if it is not heavily weighted against those sales.
#7 Branford
Perhaps one has to look at what seems some quite effective propaganda coming out of Tripoli at the moment saying 48 civilians were killed in last night’s cruise missile bombardment. The Tripoli foreign correspondents were taken to see some remarkably intact bodies supposedly blown up by cruise missiles, and also to see the injured ‘civilians’ in a hospital and in particular a healthy looking young man who was agitatedly shouting pro-Gaddaffi slogans while agitatedly bouncing up and down on the hospital bed. Nevertheless, and in spite of coalition denials this is what appears to have led to criticism from Russia and Mr Moussa today. I have found the gung-ho reporting by Western media together with US Navy video of cruise missiles being launched may have been a counterproductive trumpetting of shock and awe. The Arab League is meeting in Cairo at the moment, and no doubt the telephones are being worked overtime between Washington and Cairo. We will have to see what comes out of all this, but it did not take long for the Arabs to wobble.
Just in passing, I am not sure that with their recent instability it is fair to ask either Egypt or Tunisia to do much more than they already are. Neither is in a fit political state to take part in foreign military action.
8, I think that Carl’s point was EU hypocrisy.
I stand by my earlier position that Obama has launched an aggressive war without the benefit of a declaration of war, or any other authorization by the US Congress. He did it because he could and because the Congress is too caravan to impeach him.
For me the question is who has the authority to commit this nation to launch an unprovoked war against a sovereign nation? Is it the UK, France, the UN, Pagentmaster or the US Congress representing the people of the United States. Obama has usurped that authority.
If this turns sour, and as we blow things up and kill people, remember there is no official popular support or authorization for this war. The President and his administration have done it on their own.
#9 Br. Michael
There is plenty of hypocricy to go round. Nevertheless, and notwithstanding all the suggestions of illegality, who has the right to commit to military action [and it is ridiculous to suggest that in relation to the US it is anyone except the US], and internal US issues, the question for everybody including those who are usually suspicious of one another, is whether we are prepared to sit by and watch as a holocaust continues to take place in Libya. The UN has decided no, and some have decided to offer their hardware and young people to support that aim. No one knows what will happen:
[1] whether it will bring Libya to its senses; or
[2] whether there will be a protracted military action; or
[3] whether in the medium term, the financial sanctions will prove to be the most effective pressure on the regime, as the signs are that this is what is preoccupying them, rather than military action.
Whatever the future is, we can do little better than to pray for the protection of the Libyans we have gone to help, and for the safety of our forces, and beyond that to place these matters in God’s hands.
From the Book of Common Prayer:
[blockquote]In the time of War and Tumults
O ALMIGHTY God, King of all kings, and Governor of all things, whose power no creature is able to resist, to whom it belongeth justly to punish sinners, and to be merciful to those who truly repent; Save and deliver us, we humbly beseech thee, from the hands of our enemies; abate their pride, assuage their malice, and confound their devices; that we, being armed with thy defence, may be preserved evermore from all perils, to glorify thee, who art the only giver of all victory; through the merits of thy Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.
Amen.[/blockquote]
I agree that civilians need to be saved, but what do you all think of the fact that US documents leaked to Wikileaks show that the rebel bastions of eastern Libya were prime recruiting grounds for foreign fighters sent to Iraq to fight with AQ?
Has the West truly vetted the rebels and their motives? Is anyone here familiar with the Algerian civil war? How does possible AQ involvement complicate the situation?
10. Pageantmaster [blockquote] the question for everybody including those who are usually suspicious of one another, is whether we are prepared to sit by and watch as a holocaust continues to take place in Libya.[/blockquote] The answer is clearly “No.” But that is the wrong question. Instead you should ask “Are we prepared to sit by and watch as a holocaust continues to take place in a country 3000 miles from the southern border of Europe.” The answer to that question is not so clear.
carl
#12 I think that is a fair question carl. To date the UN and the rest of us have not had a good record of preventing murder of unarmed civilians, even in Europe when we had the capability to do so in Bosnia, let alone elsewhere.
However this area is developing – it is only about 5 or 6 years since the UN recognised that there is a “DUTY” on it to intervene to prevent the murder of civilians. This latest UNSC resolution is the first time this has really been put to the test, and is an innovative wording, so it will be interesting to see:
[1] if it forms the basis for a more proactive international approach in oither cases in the future;
[2] whether it is in fact possible to protect civilians without ground commitment – many people including you, I think, are doubtful about anything which is not either an intervention that is total, including nation-building or on the other hand stayed out of completely;
[3] how such a diverse coallition is able to work together and be effective.
So as far as I can see this is all uncharted territory, but has one major advantage over prior UN and Western interventions: the extraordinary level of support is is receiving internationally and regionally. I suspect that much will depend on the level of planning which has gone on and the commitment of the participants, including their continued resolve if things do not go to plan. Gaddaffi will continue to probe to try to find weak points to exploit.
#11 Vatican Watcher – I read about that assessment which is worrying indeed. There clearly is a radicalised element in the East, and I suppose the largest danger is if one ends up with a failed state in the East of Libya which the radicals can exploit. So far it looks as if mainstream professionals and citizens are running the interim administration in the East, but it is certainly worth keeping an eye on. Gaddaffi is exploiting such fears by claiming that everyone in the East is a radical, but this is no more true than that Britain is radical because some Pakistani Brits were captured in Afghanistan.
There is a report here from Misurata today about what is going on there.
13. Pageantmaster [blockquote] To date the UN and the rest of us have not had a good record of preventing murder of unarmed civilians[/blockquote]There is a good reason for that. The security problem is usually derivative of the structure (or lack of structure) in the state. You can’t just ‘stop the killing.’ You have to fix the problem that facilitated the killing in the first place. Said task is not easy or fast or cheap. In essence it amounts to ‘altruistic colonization.’ The strategy employed in Libya hopes to avoid this problem by leaving all the hard work to the Libyans themselves. This is the endgame problem I keep high-lighting. The current strategy does little more than hope for the best. It is predicated upon the assumption that the enemy of Gaddaffi must be virtuous, or at least more virtuous Gaddaffi. It completely ignores the possibility that the cure will be worse than the disease.
And then what? If the situation Libya collapses, will the “duty to intervene” suddenly be expanded to include armed intervention with soldiers. After all, you said it:[blockquote] it is only about 5 or 6 years since the UN recognized that there is a “DUTY†on it to intervene to prevent the murder of civilians.[/blockquote] That statement does not seem to leave room for qualification. If the current strategy fails, and civilians are still being murdered, then the duty to which you refer would require more effective measures. If you do nothing at that point, you repudiate the duty you just claimed the UN has elucidated.
You can’t have it both ways. You can’t justify your actions by declaring an imperative to stop murder, but then qualify the range of actions you are willing to take in the face of murder. If you have a duty, then you must fulfill it to the best of your ability.
carl
10, I accuse only the US. We are a sovereign nation. Obama is operating outside our laws and Constitution. That is our problem. If his illegal actions operate to you and the EU’s advantage then good for you.
See this: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0311/51595.html
I am as far to the right as I can be from these people, yet I agree with them on this. Bombing Libya might be the right thing to do, but it is the prerogative of the Congress, through declaration of war. Not unilateral action of the President. If the President is not restrained by the Constitution then why am I? Except that he has the raw powr to kill me.
That is the point PM. Gaddafi may be as evil as Stalin, but it is the Congress that retains the power to go to war with him. If the President can go to war with whom he wills, who restrains him?
The EU was quick to condemn Bush who had just as good reasons, so now why support Obama? He is black, a Democrat progressive, or simply not Bush (drum rolls of hate please)?
“You can’t have it both ways. You can’t justify your actions by declaring an imperative to stop murder, but then qualify the range of actions you are willing to take in the face of murder. If you have a duty, then you must fulfill it to the best of your ability”.
Yes, in essence, if you break it in order to fix it, you buy it.
As everyone already sees, this is never an easy row to hoe. Prayers…
#16 carl
I think as operations are now ongoing, that I will stop being a blogchair general and trust our military planners and the brave people who have been and are now engaged in Libya. It won’t stop me watching and commenting, but it is now something where I think one should sit back and trust them. As Bookworm says, prayers for them all.
Carl wrote,
[blockquote] There is a good reason for that. The security problem is usually derivative of the structure (or lack of structure) in the state. You can’t just ‘stop the killing.’ [/blockquote]
I thought the thread was about Libya, not Baluchistan.
For those not aware, all the evidence in Libya indicates that the systematic killing, raping and torturing are perpetrated by a centralised state apparatus.
[blockquote] The answer is clearly “No.†But that is the wrong question. Instead you should ask “Are we prepared to sit by and watch as a holocaust continues to take place in a country 3000 miles from the southern border of Europe.†The answer to that question is not so clear. [/blockquote]
I am happy to accept those nuances, but we must still add another question: Are we in the West prepared to suddenly draw a line under our past involvement in the politics of the Middle East? If so, why do we draw that line now, and why here? Because we in the West have been deeply involved in the politics of the Middle East for decades. For one simple reason – our life-style depends on a supply of cheap oil, and whilst the Middle East/Arab World do not contain all the oil in the world, they are impossible to ignore.
So the question becomes – why are we not prepared to deal with the Arab liberation movements? We have been more than ready to deal with the current governments in the past. I for one am happy to switch horses now that it looks like the momentum is shifting towards the Arab protest movement.
People who advocate ignoring the rebel movements in these Arab countries are advocating a very foolish, naive and short-sighted policy on the part of the West. It is one that could cost us dearly in future. We ought to be making friends with these people now.
Terry Tee at #4 wrote:
[blockquote] But the real crunch question is surely: what would victory look like? We could not answer that question when we went into Iraq, we could not answer it when we went into Afghanistan, and we cannot answer it for Libya. Ergo we should have stayed out. [/blockquote]
The problem with that question is that it could not have been answered by any member of the US armed forces in 1917 or 1941 either. Why is an inability to answer that question always important?
Now, I agree that there might be circumstances where it is relevant. The comment by the British Chief of the General Staff prior to the invasion of Iraq in 2003 is justly famous:
[blockquote] “Getting to Baghdad is going to be the easy part. The trouble is that the Americans haven’t the faintest idea what to do afterwards”. [/blockquote]
That statement was made in the light of the particular conflict and country that was contemplated, and the particular operation (full-scale invasion).
But it doesn’t always apply: I cannot see how a lack of a blue-print for Europe or the Pacific after the war had the slightest relevance for those going to war with Hitler and Tojo in 1939 (or 1941). Nor does it necessarily apply to a military operation with limited aims and commitment (which Libya is so far, but Iraq was not).
22. MichaelA wrote:[blockquote] I thought the thread was about Libya, not Baluchistan.[/blockquote] I was talking about Libya. The problem in Libya is the Government. That’s a structural problem. You can’t just arrest someone and send him to prison, and then expect everything to return to normal. To fix the problem in Libya, you have to change the government. That means you have to replace it with something. Now, I suppose you could conquer the enemy, hand control over to a Provisional Revolutionary Council, and leave. That will make you lots of friends with the revolutionaries because that’s exactly what they want you to do. But there is no guarantee you have actually solved the humanitarian problem that allegedly justified your intervention in the first place. If your actual purpose is regime change, then you better be careful who you support. They should probably have some vetting besides:
1. They are fighting Gaddaffi.
2. They are call pro-democracy’ demonstrators in the western press.
You would think the fate of Iran would teach the west something.
carl
[blockquote] The problem with that question is that it could not have been answered by any member of the US armed forces in 1917 or 1941 either. Why is an inability to answer that question always important?[/blockquote] It isn’t necessarily important. Certainly it wasn’t important in Iraq in 2003. Mitigating the risk of a nuclear-armed Sadaam Hussein was more important than all the uncertainty of the aftermath. But it does highlight the necessity of defending vital interests instead of humanitarian impulses. One cannot reliably predict the consequences of his actions. Wilson intervened in 1917 to save the world for Anglo-Saxon Civilization, and in so doing he indirectly caused the destruction of every major empire in Europe. He wasn’t defending a vital American interest. He was defending a vital British interest. It made no difference to the US if Germany emerged as the dominant nation of the continent. Wilson prevented German victory at the cost of the emergence of both Hitler, and Communism. Virtually every political disaster that afflicted man in the 20th Century can be traced back to Wilson’s desire to help the British achieve their long-term goal of preventing German dominance of the Continent. What would have happened if the US had kept itself out of the WWI? Counter-factuals are always dangerous, so it’s impossible to say. We do know what actually did happen, however, and the results are not pretty.
carl
Not too much Christian love and charity in this thread.
Carl,
I agree completely with your comment #25.
One hesitates to argue with the received opinion of carl and others but this is not correct:
[blockquote]Wilson intervened in 1917 to save the world for Anglo-Saxon Civilization, and in so doing he indirectly caused the destruction of every major empire in Europe. He wasn’t defending a vital American interest. He was defending a vital British interest. It made no difference to the US if Germany emerged as the dominant nation of the continent. Wilson prevented German victory at the cost of the emergence of both Hitler, and Communism. Virtually every political disaster that afflicted man in the 20th Century can be traced back to Wilson’s desire to help the British achieve their long-term goal of preventing German dominance of the Continent.[/blockquote]
The First World War was undertaken to keep keep Europe, not just Britain free from the dominance of the Empire of Kaiser William over the Austro-Hungarian Empire, the Russian Empire, the Republic of France, the Kingdom of Belgium, and all of their empires which would have isolated the US from access to oil and raw materials. The only empires destoyed by the allies in WWI was the German Empire and its constituent Kingdoms and Grand Duchies. The other empires including the Austro-Hungarian were casualties of German aggression.
[blockquote]Virtually every political disaster that afflicted man in the 20th Century can be traced back to Wilson’s desire to help the British achieve their long-term goal of preventing German dominance of the Continent.[/blockquote]
The Second World War was not caused by Wilson’s actions. Arguably the punitive sanctions on Germany after WWI primarily at the insistence of the French and the financial collapse in the ’30’s and its consequent societal collapse created the conditions for the rise of National Socialism and Hitler and the Axis alliance of Germany, Italy and Japan.
[blockquote]What would have happened if the US had kept itself out of the WWI?[/blockquote]
By now, you would probably be speaking German, or Japanese, carl!
It also has to be said that people of goodwill tried everything they could in the 20’s and 30’s to prevent further war, including the creation of the league of nations, but the instability caused by the Russian Revolution and rise of Stalin, made that a forlorne hope. You will remember that the Russian Revolution and Bolshevik takeover were also a consequence of the actions of the German Empire. Perhaps without that Russia would have developed into a constitutional monarchy or developed economy under a democratic democracy, something which seemed to be the direction that country was going in in 1912.
No. 29: I would have thought that the increasingly assertive actions of Fascist Italy and Germany and militaristic Japan did far more to expose the impotence of the League of Nations than did the existence of Communist Russia in this period.
Carl wrote:
[blockquote] “…. But there is no guarantee you have actually solved the humanitarian problem that allegedly justified your intervention in the first place.” [/blockquote]
There is no guarantee of anything in this world, particularly where military operations are concerned. But so what?
[blockquote] “If your actual purpose is regime change, then you better be careful who you support.” [/blockquote]
Of course. This is an obvious point about every such operation since the world began.
[blockquote] “You would think the fate of Iran would teach the west something.”
[/blockquote]
Now you really have me confused: Are you suggesting that the US wrongly intervened in Iran on behalf of rebels? On the contrary, I suggest that Iran in 1979 is properly characterised as a case where the US unwisely failed to intervene decisively on behalf of the existing government, until it was too late.
[blockquote] “It isn’t necessarily important. Certainly it wasn’t important in Iraq in 2003. Mitigating the risk of a nuclear-armed Sadaam Hussein was more important than all the uncertainty of the aftermath.” [/blockquote]
You appear to be under the misapprehension that a competent military cannot walk and chew gum at the same time. In other words, the fact that your reason for invading Iraq was to mitigate the effect of an (allegedly) nuclear armed Sadaam Hussein, doesn’t mean you can’t also have a plan for what you are doing afterwards. Hence the rather bemused comment by the British CGS.
[blockquote] “But it does highlight the necessity of defending vital interests instead of humanitarian impulses.” [/blockquote]
Since the imposition of a No-Fly Zone in Libya was done to defend the west’s vital interests, we are in agreement.
And I am sure you appreciate that “defending vital interests” does not have to be inconsistent with “humanitarian impulses” (whatever that means).
[blockquote] “One cannot reliably predict the consequences of his actions. Wilson intervened in 1917 to save the world for Anglo-Saxon Civilization, and in so doing he indirectly caused the destruction of every major empire in Europe.” [/blockquote]
No, he didn’t. Wilson intervened in 1917 as the logical consequence of existing American foreign policy, which did not materially change between 1914 and 1918.
And he did not “cause the destruction of every major empire in Europe”.
[blockquote] “He wasn’t defending a vital American interest. He was defending a vital British interest.” [/blockquote]
I disagree. You might have done a bit better if you had written “French” instead of “British”, but even then you are not correct. The fact that American intervention was one significant factor in avoiding foreign occupation of the northern areas of France was only incidental to the wider purpose of the US.
[blockquote] “It made no difference to the US if Germany emerged as the dominant nation of the continent.” [/blockquote]
It made every difference, which is why the USA intervened.
[blockquote] “Wilson prevented German victory at the cost of the emergence of both Hitler, and Communism.” [/blockquote]
Wilson’s intervention certainly had nothing to do with “the emergence of communism”. I suggest doing a simple comparison of dates.
Nor did the USA’s intervention in WWI cause “the emergence of Hitler” – an absurd suggestion. The USA did not win World War I for the allies, although it played a significant part at the end, and in any case allied victory did not cause “the emergence of Hitler” either.
[blockquote] “Virtually every political disaster that afflicted man in the 20th Century can be traced back to Wilson’s desire to help the British achieve their long-term goal of preventing German dominance of the Continent.” [/blockquote]
??? The USA’s aim in Europe had been similar to that of the British since the end of the 19th century, i.e. to prevent any one nation dominating the continent. From 1914-1916, the USA did that by bankrolling the French and British war efforts. However, by 1917, it had become clear that US money and French/British blood would not be enough – there would have to be US blood as well, for the Germans to be pushed back.
And “virtually every political disaster can be traced back to Wilson”??? Right.
A few days in, it looks as if the humanitarian aim of preventing slaughter of the million inhabitants of Benghazi has been achieved just in time as Gaddaffi’s tanks were at its gates. Unfortunately help has not been in time to help many in Misurata or the towns which have been ‘cleansed’, which seems to mean flattened. They seem strangely empty. Where are the people? One hopes that they are alive somewhere, but it seems less likely as time goes on.
I am thankful that the coalition has been successful now it has gone in, and in particular for the US support. The crew of a US plane reportedly downed with mechanical trouble have been fortunately recovered alive according to reports from our Ministry of Defence.
Some of the live links available are as follows:
[url=http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12776418]BBC[/url]
[url=http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/22/libya-live-blog-satellite-images-appear-to-show-destruction-of-mosque/?hpt=T1]CNN[/url]
[url=http://blogs.aljazeera.net/category/country/libya]Al Jazeera[/url]
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8390035/Libya-Live.html]Telegraph[/url]
These ‘live’ aggregators of news can be helpful but always bearing in mind:
1. The particular ‘angles’ some sources have;
2. The need to consider the credibility of the source quoted;
3. The need to check that reports are corroborated;
4. Whether reports are subsequently officially confirmed.
That said, the direct reports from areas affected are coming through twitter, mobile calls and other social media are leading the MSM reports. Even the MSM reporters are breaking their news through the new media. One needs to remember that Gaddaffi propaganda is also being sent by this means, but it is usually pretty transparent.
Thanks be to God for the lives saved so far.