The Libyan rebel commander, Gen Abdul Fattah Younis, has accused Nato of standing idly by while pro-Gaddafi forces kill people in Misrata.
If Nato waited another week to intervene, the besieged city’s people faced extermination, he told reporters in the de facto rebel capital Benghazi.
A Nato-led coalition mandated by the UN to protect civilians is enforcing a no-fly zone and attacking ground targets.
[blockquote] Nato says international air strikes have reduced Col Gaddafi’s military capabilities by nearly a third … [/blockquote] Uh huh. In the meantime, you can see from the following statement why you can’t protect civilians with airstrikes.[blockquote] … but his forces have deliberately moved weaponry into civilian areas to hamper air strikes. “When human beings are used as shields we don’t engage,” Brig Gen Mark van Uhm, a senior Nato staff officer, said in Brussels.[/blockquote] The enemy isn’t an idiot. He learns what you can do, and he adapts accordingly. [blockquote] Pro-Gaddafi forces, he added, were resorting more and more to using trucks and light vehicles, “keeping more heavy equipment like armoured vehicles [hidden]”.[/blockquote]Diminishing returns quickly set in. That means the task gets progressively more difficult over time.
The options narrow: 1) Look the other way, or 2) send the infantry.
carl
We are seeing the result of the precipitate handover of the command and control function, not into the hands of the coalition and its principle partners, France, Britain and the US who are doing the heavy lifting, but into the hands of the NATO partners including those who are antagonistic, like Germany and compromised, like Turkey. The only acceptable alternative to US command and control would have been to use the NATO command and control facilities, but under coalition control with a British commander as the British and perhaps French wanted, rather than the peculiar pick and mix of people from minor contributors, so determined were some in NATO to keep the Brits out.
We are seeing the results – the US bolted for the door the day before yesterday in time for the launch of Obama’s reelection campaign, and perhaps deciding to leave it all to NATO to [mis]manage as it wished.
Nevertheless, like the citizens of Benghazi, we must express thanks to the US for the wonderful job it has done, and the support it now offers in the background. The indications are that the regime is collapsing and the main criminal suspects are trying to get out. It is likely it will collapse anyway with the sanctions which have cut off its lifeblood of funds to keep its supporters sweet.
Sadly the NATO indecisiveness is leaving the regime to fire oilfields in Eastern Libya, and to put in troops in civilian transport and artillery mounted ‘technicals’ to get into the civilian areas. There was only one way to deal with this and declare a buffer area around the civilian centers as no drive zones in which any transport heading from regime centers would be liable to attack. This would have acted as a firm signal with a line which could not be crossed. Instead the vacuum has allowed Gaddaffi to entrench fighters in Misurata.
I was struck by the report from Misurata of one body of a Gaddaffi soldier who had written on his hand “O Misurata – I was forced”.
Prayers for Misurata, Brega, Zintan, the remaining civilian enclaves and the people of Libya.
2. Pageantmaster[blockquote] the US bolted for the door the day before yesterday[/blockquote] Better late than never. The US should have never went through the door in the first place. [blockquote] It is likely it will collapse anyway with the sanctions which have cut off its lifeblood of funds to keep its supporters sweet.[/blockquote] Quickly followed by chaos, anarchy, slaughter, ruthless civil war, and all its attendant bloodshed. Perhaps NATO will get to fulfill its pledge to bomb the rebels in Libya as well. Those would be the people NATO is hoping to put in power. How amazing is it that NATO acts as the Libyan Liberation Air Force on Tuesday and then bombs the Libyan Liberation Army on Wednesday. [blockquote] There was only one way to deal with this and declare a buffer area around the civilian centers as no drive zones in which any transport heading from regime centers would be liable to attack.[/blockquote] Well, other than inserting soldiers to block the road, I guess. A ‘No drive Zone’ would prove somewhat ineffective since NATO has already said in won’t attack vehicles mounted with human shields. A war crime, you protest? Well, sure, but what are you going to do? Arrest Gadhaffi? That would take soldiers. Introducing soldiers would be ‘illegal.’ Such an irony. Do you violate ‘international law’ to prevent a violation of ‘international law?’ Is a massacre in Libya a fair price to pay in order to uphold the authority of the UNSC?
carl
Who are these “rebels” really and how do we know they are truthful? Why are we fighting a war without the consent of Congress?
#3 Hi carl
[blockquote]Better late than never. The US should have never went through the door in the first place.[/blockquote]
Well certainly we have seen unaccustomed speed and decisivenes from President Obama.
[blockquote]Quickly followed by chaos, anarchy, slaughter, ruthless civil war, and all its attendant bloodshed. [/blockquote]
Well Gaddaffi would certainly like us to believe that, but the evidence from the liberated East as well as the West before the protests were brutally snuffed out is that these are Libyans who only want to get rid of a brutal regime and who have already organised peacefully an interim authority for liberated areas.
There have been queries about the interim leadership, but the British Government have pointed to their contacts with it and the statement supporting democratic change and respect for law and human rights as evidence that this will be better than what is currently in place with the imported mercenaries massacring civilians.
[blockquote]Perhaps NATO will get to fulfill its pledge to bomb the rebels in Libya as well. Those would be the people NATO is hoping to put in power. How amazing is it that NATO acts as the Libyan Liberation Air Force on Tuesday and then bombs the Libyan Liberation Army on Wednesday.[/blockquote]
That was certainly a bizarre communication from NATO, but I suspect what they had in mind was a warning to the Free Libyans not to do what had been done to them to the people of Gaddaffi’s hometown of Sirte. This followed the opposition starting to replace the ad hoc fighters with members of the army who had defected. But of course they did not want them to continue to behave on the opposition side as they had when they were part of Gaddaffi’s army.
It was however, a stupid and silly thing to say publicly, and just typical of the former Danish prime minister who heads the political side of NATO.
We will just have to see whether you or I will be right about the regime collapsing and what happens afterwards, although the US and NATO actions of the last week have certainly given Gaddaffi some more free rein and made a quick resolution less likely. But political collapse if not military, does seem to be accelerating for the regime.
5. Pageantmaster [blockquote] It was however, a stupid and silly thing to say publicly[/blockquote] Not if the purpose of this expedition is to ‘protect civilians.’ If that is the case, the comment was perfectly rational. Have you not said repeatedly that ‘protecting civilians’ is the mission? Such a mission would imply a level of neutrality between the competing sides – as if NATO sees itself as a referee to the fight. But of course we all know this isn’t the true mission. The actual mission has always been to overthrow Gadhaffi. The ‘protect civilians’ dodge is simply a fig leaf to allow credible public deniability for certain parties. In fact, as it stands now, the only way to protect civilians from Gadhaffi is to ensure his overthrow.
So the remark was indeed “stupid & silly” but principally because it only served to highlight the uncertainty of NATO about its own ally, and thus the uncertainty underlying NATOs ultimate purpose in this campaign. Who is NATO really fighting to put into power? It doesn’t have a clue. That’s why it threatened to bomb them. How is NATO going to influence the final outcome? It isn’t, because it can’t. It doesn’t have the means of control. NATO needs to maintain the illusion that everything will turn out for the better in Libya. Otherwise its own stated mission is going to require actions that no one wants to take – like invasion. If you predicate this mission on a humanitarian crisis and then bring to pass a worse humanitarian crisis than would have occurred if you had just stayed out of it, you will be faced with a hard decision. You can 1) ignore the crisis, and dismantle your own credibility on the subject by refusing to escalate. Then you can forget about preaching the gospel of humanitarian intervention in the future, because who will believe you. Or you can 2) escalate the intervention with ground forces and bear the cost in blood and money. Flying fighter planes atop of the chaos will just make you look weak and ineffectual.
carl
#3: Excuse me? “….should have never went through the door….?” The way that is expressed in the English language is “should never have gone through the door….”.
I learned a long time ago that it isn’t wise to engage in dialogue or debate with English-speakers who don’t use English correctly, as it may belie the organization of their thought processes.
In a way, but not really, I am amazed that Obama, having engaged in an illegal war, has reduced it to the dignity of an urban drive by shooting.
7. TACit[blockquote] I learned a long time ago that it isn’t wise to engage in dialogue or debate with English-speakers who don’t use English correctly, as it may belie the organization of their thought processes. [/blockquote]Or you could realize that:
1. Blog posts tack close to speech patterns and not formal writing.
2. People who finish blog posts at 12:34 AM aren’t necessarily paying that much attention to rules set down by people who think Literature is an important subject.
3. It’s completely irrelevant that my snooty daughter (who thinks her writing is ‘all that’) constantly laughs at my posts and says things like “Dad, the English language called. It wants its commas back.”
4. I’m an Engineer anyways, and we get special dispensation.
In the meantime, I will return to making hamburger out of Pageantmaster’s arguments on Libya – which I have been doing quite consistently for about four weeks now.
carl
#7 TACit
Thank you – there is certainly much in what you say. However as Christians perhaps we should take the opportunities blogging gives for mission as follows:-
1. Blogging is educative – and so a gentle comment such as yours may encourage another to improve their grammar, particularly when expressed as truth conveyed in love;
2. Some bloggers are lonely people with no friends and notwithstanding any cerebral impediments, we should engage with them as an act of kindness;
3. When family members become aware of the situation, they can also offer constructive criticism and encouragement to the grammatically challenged commenter;
4. Particular care should be shown for Engineers – they try to think with only one side of their brain which explains some of their difficulties with language, and with dress-sense.
Often, they are unaware of the incoherence of their arguments and deluded in the inconsistency of their thoughts – who else would try to make a hamburger using arguments as ingredients? We should persevere with them – if we don’t try to help, they will never improve.
I shall return to my grammatical exercises and then read an improving book.
10. Pageantmaster [blockquote] which explains some of their difficulties with language, and with dress-sense.
[/blockquote] Hey! What exactly are you implying? Lots of Engineers wear blue jeans and tennis shoes.
carl
While I certainly hope Gaddafi falls from power, by the same token, I think the rebels share a good bit of that blame in failing to protect civilians. From all the news clips I’ve seen, the rebels appear to be little more than good ole’ boys running around in trucks with rocket launchers. How exactly they thought they were going to win a war against a professional army baffles me.
I maintain that great leeway should be given to people for grammatical errors in blog comments. It is an extension of speech, and we all make errors. Example:[blockquote]a gentle comment such as yours may encourage another to improve their grammar[/blockquote]Either “others to improve their grammar” or “another to improve his grammar” would be better. But I knew what Pageantmaster meant, and I knew what carl meant, despite his fatigue. Let’s give each other a break.
#11 carl
[blockquote]Lots of Engineers wear blue jeans and tennis shoes[/blockquote]
Appropriate wear for making hamburgers.
#13 Kathureen
[blockquote]Either “others to improve their grammar†or “another to improve his grammar†would be better. [/blockquote]
It’s a fair cop, Guv!
It is quite interesting to read this American military briefing of US political events, and what Nato had to say today.
The criticism from Capitol Hill seems to have spooked those in control of the US military, and NATO has responded to criticism by complaining that the presence of civilian shields is preventing NATO action, a story that only partly answers the complaints of inactivity since the US withdrawal from protecting civilians. In spite of all that, there seems to have been a return to activity by NATO today in response. They seem to have been stung by the widespread criticism. Turkey in particular is coming in for criticism for allegedly hamstringing the NATO effort notwithstanding the evacuation of the injured by sea from Misurata they undertook. It is not clear to what extent all this is justified but is consistent with my concerns about how all this is being handled. It is perhaps a mistake to allow Turkey to get itself into the driving seat.
[blockquote] Deputy Secretary Steinberg maintained the position that the President was within his authority in acting without congressional approval and pointed out that President Ronald Reagan exercised a similar authority during the 1986 U.S. air raids on Libya.[/blockquote] Of course, Reagan’s strike against Libya was decidedly punitive and limited in scope. It wasn’t intended to overthrow a gov’t by assisting a rebellion. And at the time the US aircraft based in England had to fly around the Iberian peninsula because the US couldn’t get overflight permission from our European Allies.[blockquote] Further support of the President’s decision came from Chairman Kerry, who said, “We do have strategic interests at stake in Libya…By supporting the Libyan opposition, we give them a fighting chance to oust a dictator with a history of terrorism and the blood of Americans on his hands.”[/blockquote] Really? That’s the best you could do? Gadhaffi is dictator who committed an act of terrorism in 1988? That’s your vital interest? This tells you how weak that case for a “vital interest” really is.
carl
#16 carl
[blockquote]Of course, Reagan’s strike against Libya was decidedly punitive and limited in scope.[/blockquote]
It also didn’t have the backing of a UN resolution
[blockquote]…at the time the US aircraft based in England had to fly around the Iberian peninsula because the US couldn’t get overflight permission from our European Allies.[/blockquote]
Perhaps the US had not convincingly made the case to them of the legality of the mission. However, there was a European Nation which permitted use of its air facilities. Who might that be, do you think?
[blockquote]It wasn’t intended to overthrow a gov’t by assisting a rebellion.[/blockquote]
Please explain, as an Engineer, where you read this aim in regard to Libya in UNSCR 1973?
No matter carl, the US has stopped frontline action, in order to look after the vital interest of re-electing President Obama, it appears.
17. Pageantmaster[blockquote] It also didn’t have the backing of a UN resolution [/blockquote]My chief reaction is surprise…surprise and fear…fear and surprise…. My two reactions are fear and surprise…and hopeless mortification…. My *three* reactions are fear, surprise, and hopeless mortification…and an almost fanatical devotion to the United Nations Security Council…. My *four*…no… *Amongst* my reactions…. Amongst my reactions…are such elements as fear, surprise…. I’ll come in again. [blockquote] Perhaps the US had not convincingly made the case to them of the legality of the mission.[/blockquote]Yes, I am sure that was the problem. [blockquote] However, there was a European Nation which permitted use of its air facilities. Who might that be, do you think? [/blockquote] Well there is Europe and then there is Britain, and I don’t think many Americans have any trouble differentiating between the two.[blockquote] where you read this aim in regard to Libya in UNSCR 1973?[/blockquote] Silly Pageantmaster. You know better. It’s not in the resolution. What fool of a politician would put an assertion like that in a UNSCR? There would have been no UNSCR if it had called for the overthrow of Gadhaffi. No, I have come to my conclusion the old-fashioned way – by observing the transparent efforts of the coalition military forces.[blockquote] the US has stopped frontline action, in order to look after the vital interest of re-electing President Obama[/blockquote] You say that like it’s a bad thing. It should indicate to you just how unsustainable the effort is. The public will not support it, and politicians fear the fallout. That’s called democracy in action. For better or worse, the American public really doesn’t want to be involved in Libya and Obama knows it.
carl
And now for a Canadian perspective:
http://www.globalnews.ca/world/story.html?id=4558938
Jack Granatstein is a retired Army officer and well respected military historian.
Carl, I’m starting to think that you will be gravely disappointed if the outcome in Libya is anything but disasterous.
19. WarrenS
No, I simply think that people should view these events with open eyes and clear minds, instead of closed eyes and crossed fingers. And if there is one thing I despise it is the triumph of good intentions over reasoned expectations. Everything that has happened was entirely predictable. It didn’t require the gift of prophesy. It was more like predicting that a rock dropped in water will get wet. The tools at hand were never sufficient to produce the results desired and it was blindingly obvious from the beginning that this was the case. Many people thought good intentions would be sufficient to carry the battle. They didn’t stop to think that good intentions don’t form the means necessary to fulfill the task.
I haven’t been hoping for disaster. I have been saying the equivalent of “If you throw gasoline on a fire, you will get a big explosion and only a fool would do that.” To avoid the disaster that has been created by this intervention, you have one choice remaining. You can invade and seize control. Otherwise, things are going to devolve and you haven’t even started to see the beginnings of a humanitarian crisis. All in all, it would have been better for Libya to just leave it alone than to do what has been done.
carl
I’ve had some interesting conversations with an American colleague who recently occupied a cubicle next to mine. He retired from the Air Force and subsequently ran for Congress – unsucessfully. He’s well versed in history, has a far broader world outlook than most Americans I’ve met, and is currently writing a book on American politics. Something he deals with in his book is American mythology as opposed to reality (e.g. how Americans popularly see themselves as opposed to how things really are; or were) – something he believes is vital to understanding the American political process and how policy is framed. I think this extends to the popular view of sucess and failure in war. Viewed through an American lens, the definition of sucess and failure is often extremely narrow. This seems to lead to much dissatisfaction and angst, and a short-term view in making policy and taking decisions. Where I would be prepared to give the US credit for limited gains in some areas, many Americans view as total failure and want to shoot all involved. I try to understand the American mind – but usually come up short (especially with the right-wing conservative mind).
#19 WarrenS
Thank you for that Canadian perspective by Jack Granatstein – I am afraid it is chillingly accurate.
Warren S. at #19, your last sentence hits the nail on the head.
Carl wrote:
[blockquote] “Quickly followed by chaos, anarchy, slaughter, ruthless civil war, and all its attendant bloodshed.” [/blockquote]
This describes the normal activities of the Qaddafi regime. By contrast, things are much better now.