Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

[Journeyman]

What I do object to, and which you did with great enthusiasm and zeal previously, is post links that take viewers to a blog which contains personal opinion pieces.  There is a stark difference between what is actual fact vs. a piece that is based simply on one's personal opinion.

If only he'd catch on  :

 

[211RadOp]

http://www.kingstonwhigstandard.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3041649

Canadian jets complete first bombing run
By BRYN WEESE, PARLIAMENTARY BUREAU
Posted 55 minutes ago
 
OTTAWA-- Canadian fighter jets have destroyed a Libyan ammunition depot near Misurata.

It's the first successful bombing mission for the Canadian Forces in the international effort to disable Moammar Gadhafi's air force and military capabilities to protect the Libyan people from him.

Since Tuesday, when two Canadian F-18s aborted an earlier bombing mission, four CF-18s have flown two missions -- one Tuesday night and one during the day on Wednesday.

During the night sortie, the Canadian fighters dropped four 500-pound laser-guided bombs on the ammunitions depot in Misurata, according to Maj.-Gen. Tom Lawson, assistant chief of the air staff.

Misurata is a rebel-controlled city near Tripoli that has been under heavy assault from pro-Gadhafiforces for several days, according to reports.

Lawson said the point was to destroy the supplies so they couldn't be used against the Libyan people.

"From all indications, it was a solid military target," he said. "Every indication is the attack was very successful and that there was no collateral damage.

"There is no indication at this time that there were any deaths involved from the imagery we have. However, that is not conclusive."

Canada is part of an international coalition, which includes France, the United States and Britain, enforcing a UN-sanctioned no-fly zone over Libya.

More at link

 

[Edward Campbell]

Now here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a clear analysis of the strategy behind the Libyan intervention:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/were-fighting-war-lite-without-leadership-or-goals/article1954106/

We’re fighting War Lite, without leadership or goals

CLIFFORD ORWIN

From Thursday's Globe and Mail
Published Thursday, Mar. 24, 2011

Humanitarian military interventions such as the one under way in Libya typically face just two main obstacles. The first is, they’re humanitarian. The second is, they’re military interventions.

Humanitarianism means never having to say you’re sorry. The wars it generates present themselves as peace by other means. Not politics by other means – Clausewitz’s famous definition of war – because humanitarianism is, by definition, non-political. It aims for goals on which “the international community” can agree, and there’s no political goal on which that illusory body can agree. It can only agree on non-controversial aims, such as saving innocents from suffering. Brandishing these, it huffily denies that its ends are political ones. Heaven forbid we should be blowing up all those things in Libya for the sake of effecting regime change.

Regime change is controversial, you see, even when the regime is that of a mad dog like Moammar Gadhafi. So for the sake of consensus – humanitarianism loves consensus, since it’s just this consensus that vouches for it as non-political – intervention couches itself in neutral terms. Yes, Colonel Gadhafi must go (Barack Obama has said so), but it’s not the intervention’s aim to remove him. That aim is merely to stop him from doing such terrible things.

That goal is a worthy one. But it can’t be achieved except by removing Col. Gadhafi. Leave a despot in power and you leave him with the power to oppress. And removing him may require more than your typical humanitarian intervention – a war fought at 15,000 feet, or with cruise missiles lobbed from distant warships, without too much danger to the intervenors. No despot has ever been deposed from 15,000 feet.

Because humanitarian intervention is War Lite, it often fails to evoke the resolve that “real” wars do. Yet, because it, too, is war, it, too, requires that resolve. Here, the historical record is clear: To be even partly successful, interventions must feature one determined power, militarily capable and clearly committed, on whom everyone else involved depends to do the heavy lifting. Examples are the U.S. interventions in Bosnia and Kosovo, the Australian one in East Timor and the British one in Sierra Leone. International endorsement merely provided the fig leaf of non-politicality.

Then there were the genuinely multilateral and, therefore, ineffectual interventions: Somalia, Rwanda, the toxic combination of the Europeans and the United Nations in the Balkans. True multilateralism features everyone hoping that someone else will do something. It means being more concerned with being seen to act on CNN than with actually accomplishing anything.

No one has strong enough reasons of their own for intervening in Libya. The strategic interests of each participant lies elsewhere (although the Europeans worry, as they did in the Balkans, about a flood of unwanted immigrants). Each country is primarily concerned with exposing itself as little as possible to danger or costs of any magnitude. Mr. Obama, David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy are not in strong enough positions at home to weather significant setbacks abroad. The Americans insist that the Europeans will take the lead, as both parties indulge the wishful thinking that the Arabs will. No one will admit to being in charge, nor is there avowed agreement on the goal. Yet, these are the two things that a military campaign needs above all. Mr. Obama needs to see that a president shouldn’t stake his political futures on vacillating allies to whom he’s offered the example of his own irresoluteness.

The half-heartedness of the intervenors against the manic determination of Col. Gadhafi; the ragtag rebels against his better-armed and -trained pretorians; our concession of control of the ground to him for unwillingness to put any of our boots there – it all seems to bode something less than a glorious victory. No war is a bargain except for those who can afford it, but cheap, half-hearted ones aren’t bargains for anyone.

Clifford Orwin is a professor of political science at the University of Toronto and a distinguished fellow at Stanford University’s Hoover Institution.

Hello, Emperor Obama, sir: you’re walking about with no clothes on, M’lord.

 

[old medic]

I think Orwin is right out to lunch.

Everyone and their dog has said Gadhaffi has to go. With "go" being either the ICC or the grave.
That means regime change.
His last threats against ships and civilian planes should he survive were nails in his own coffin.
That alone is the will Orwin says is missing.  I suspect France will see to it, weather Sarkozy survives an election or not.
To call everyone's involvement halfhearted is poor logic.  Any good analyst knew France was hot and bothered
to shoot first.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think Orwin is right out to lunch.
...
...  Any good analyst knew France was hot and bothered
to shoot first.

Yes, but why?

Does Sarkozy care a tinker's dam about Libya or is he, like Harper, playing electoral politics with bullets and bombs? is France's aim to prevent further North African migration? To secure oil? To secure more French influence in the EU? All of the above?

"Humanitarian mission?" My eye!

 

[old medic]

Most of the above I think. Perhaps drop migration to the bottom of the list. Italy might be
more concerned with that.  France has oil interest there, with 85% of production going to Europe. 
China is next, through China National Petroleum. 1.6 million barrels a day were leaving Libya
before recent events.

That said, it is humanitarian as well. Nobody is going argue that regime was sane, except perhaps
another loon down in Venezuela. 

 

[The Bread Guy]

Two more aircraft - Auroras - join the Canadian mission, from CBC.ca:

Canada will send two additional aircraft to Italy to support efforts to protect civilians in Libya, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Thursday.

He said Canada will deploy two CP-140 Auroras to Italy to provide "strategic maritime surveillance" in support of the recent United Nations resolution on Libya, particularly the enforcement of an arms embargo.

The CP-140 Aurora is often used to patrol Canada's coastlines and can be used to detect stealth submarines.

The additional support will help the coalition as it tries to prevent the Moammar Gadhafi regime from committing crimes against civilians, he said ....

 

[WingsofFury]

The CP-140 Aurora's have recently undergone Block III upgrades.

The Block III upgrade is the third iteration of the Aurora Incremental Modernization Programme (AIMP) which began in 2002.  Blocks I and II brought upgrades to communications and avionics and Block III brings a complete enhancement of the overall weapons system.

Full Article on Upgrades from the CF Air Force Website

 

[MarkOttawa]

A true best buy for initial strike:

The Cost Value of Tomahawk Cruise Missiles
http://www.informationdissemination.net/2011/03/cost-value-of-tomahawk-cruise-missiles.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+InformationDissemination+%28Information+Dissemination%29&utm_content=Google+Reader

From Sandra Erwin at the National Defense Magazine Blog.
http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/blog/Lists/Posts/Post.aspx?ID=352

    In the Libya operation to enforce a no-fly zone, the Navy so far has launched 161 Tomahawk cruise missiles that, according to a senior U.S. Navy official, cost between $1.4 million and $1.5 million apiece. The Navy is so well stocked that it can fire up to 255 of these weapons a year without making a significant dent in its budget, or its capabilities to replenish supplies, said the official, who was speaking off-the-record at a private meeting. The Navy purchases 196 Tomahawks each year. In economic terms, the official said, the missiles are “sunk costs” that already have been incurred and could not be recovered.

    From a military tactical standpoint, the Tomahawk is the perfect weapon to use in the initial stage of a conflict such as this one, says Eric Wertheim, military analyst and author of "Combat Fleets of the World."

    “That’s where the risk is the highest” and the military wants to avoid putting airplanes in harm’s way, he says.

    When million-dollar weapons were used in the past, complaints about their price tag didn’t make headlines the way they are now. That may be one reason why the Pentagon did not deploy a Navy aircraft carrier off the coast of Libya, says Wertheim. “It sends a strong message that we are not going to be dominating for the duration of this campaign and we do not want to hold the lion’s share of the burden.”

According to the Navy.mil website, a Tomahawk missile has a Unit Cost of approximately $569,000 in FY99 dollars.
http://www.navy.mil/navydata/fact_display.asp?cid=2200&tid=1300&ct=2
They are indeed "sunk costs" because of the multi-year purchase nature of the contracts that keep stores current - contracts that I have been led to believe kept costs for Tomahawks down. There is a pretty wide difference between $569,000 in FY99 dollars and between $1.4 million and $1.5 million today, in fact in FY11 dollars the difference is somewhere around $600 million a unit if my green book math is right.

Two destroyers and three submarines have put 161 Tomahawks in Libya. I'd be curious if every other nation in the coalition combined has conducted 161 strike sorties in Libya to date, because I bet the answer is no. In that context, I'd like to highlight the value of Tomahawk missiles, rather than just focus on the cost.

In my opinion, all of these discussions on Tomahawk missile costs are missing the mark if the subject is operational costs for Libya. Just wait until Congress gets the gas bill for all the tanker sorties. I'll wager any fool who wants to bet that energy costs will be a major budget discussion in defense sooner rather than later, because the gas bill for the DoD in 2011 is going to be enormous.

Via AW&ST's "Ares" blog:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckBlogPage=Blog

Mark
Ottawa

 

[a_majoor]

Political fallout in Europe. Like here, there does not seem to be a rational reason for this operation:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-are-pacifist-europeans-declaring-war-on-libya/?singlepage=true

Why Are Pacifist Europeans Declaring War on Libya?
An unintended but highly illuminating irony of the military intervention in Libya is that it has exposed the duplicity behind European pacifism.
March 23, 2011 - by Soeren Kern

Ever since taking office in 2004, Spanish Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero has worked overtime to craft his own public persona as a “convinced pacifist.” His first official act as pacifist-in-chief was, famously, to withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq. That decision was not only wildly popular with Spanish voters, but it also cemented Zapatero’s pacifist credentials on the world stage.

Just a few months later, facing a barrage of criticism from non-pacifists at home and abroad that his Iraq policy amounted to appeasing Islamic terrorists, Zapatero reluctantly deployed extra troops to the NATO mission in Afghanistan. But just in case that deployment might cast doubt on his commitment to pacifistic ideals, Zapatero dictated strict rules of engagement that forbid Spanish troops in Afghanistan from using lethal force, a “caveat” that ever since has essentially rendered useless their presence in the country.

Later that same year, in his first speech to the United Nations General Assembly, Zapatero shed some light on his pacifist vision for achieving world peace. Using the flowery post-modern verbiage for which he is now famous, Zapatero declared: “Culture is always peace.” In case that message was not sufficiently clear, Zapatero followed up by telling Time magazine that “sexual equality is a lot more effective against terrorism than military strength.” He then went on to argue that Islamic terrorists are simply misunderstood idealists and that any differences the West may have with them should be worked out in multilateral group therapy sessions supervised by UN psychotherapists.

Zapatero has also been careful to appoint only pacifists as Spanish ministers of defense. Zapatero’s first defense minister, the controversial José Bono Martínez, proclaimed: “I am a minister of defense and I would rather be killed than to kill.” He then issued orders prohibiting Spanish troops in Afghanistan from harming Taliban fighters.

Zapatero’s second minister of defense, José Antonio Alonso Suárez, believed it was his job to demilitarize the Spanish military and to turn the newly disarmed forces into an NGO-like humanitarian organization instead. To achieve his vision, he purged from the senior ranks of the Spanish military those officers who refused to abandon the silly belief that the main mission of the military should be to defend Spanish sovereignty.

During her swearing-in ceremony, Zapatero’s third (and current) defense minister, Carme Chacón, proudly proclaimed: “I am a pacifist, as are the armies of the 21st century.” Again: “I am a pacifist woman, and the Army is also pacifist.” Her biggest achievement as Spain’s pacifism minister has been to unilaterally withdraw Spanish troops from the NATO-led KFOR peacekeeping mission in Kosovo. “Mission accomplished. It’s time to go home,” she declared, cementing Spain’s image as an unreliable military partner.

Fast-forward to 2011 and the crisis in Libya. Zapatero the ardent pacifist has suddenly been transformed chameleon-like into Zapatero the enthusiastic warrior. Far from bashing the Americans for attacking a tin pot dictator in the Middle East, Zapatero has redefined braggadocio by dispatching four Spanish F-18 fighter jets to Libya. Foes and allies alike have been transfixed by Zapatero’s “definitive metamorphosis.”

What gives!? Zapatero’s sudden ideological transformation comes at a time when Spain is mired in the worst recession in its modern history. The country has a jobless rate of more than 20 percent, the highest in the industrialized world. With nearly five million Spaniards on the dole, a spiralling national debt, and a Socialist government with no viable strategy to avoid an economic meltdown, many analysts believe Spain is headed for a Greek-style bankruptcy.

Not surprisingly, newspaper commentators are saying there is nothing like a war in Libya to take Spanish minds off how bad things are at home. And there is nothing like a war to reinvent Zapatero’s reputation as an incompetent economic crisis manager to zealous defender of democracy in Libya.

To be sure, European duplicity on the use of military force extends far beyond Spain.

Consider France, for example. French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who has consistently refused to send more troops to Afghanistan, has been quick to take the credit for the intervention in Libya. He says France has “decided to assume its role, its role before history” in stopping strongman Muammar Gaddafi’s “killing spree” against people whose only crime was to seek to “liberate themselves from servitude.”

Sarkozy’s newfound concern for Libyan democracy contrasts sharply from only three years ago, when Sarkozy welcomed Gaddafi with open arms during an extravagant five-day state visit to France. On that December 2007 occasion, Gaddafi breezed into Paris with an entourage of 400 servants, five airplanes, a camel, and 30 female virgin bodyguards, and then proceeded to pitch his tent just across the street from the Elysée Palace.

Sarkozy’s sudden zeal for the cause of democracy in Libya comes as his popularity is at record lows just thirteen months before the first round of the 2012 presidential election. With polls showing that Sarkozy is the least popular president since the founding of the Fifth Republic in 1958, he is betting that French voters will appreciate his efforts in Libya to place France at the center of the world stage and reinforce what Charles de Gaulle once famously called “a certain idea of France” as a nation of exceptional destiny.

In any case, Sarkozy’s main rival is not Gaddafi, but rather Marine Le Pen, the charismatic new leader of the far-right National Front party in France. A new opinion poll published by the Le Parisien newspaper on March 8 has Le Pen, who took over from her father, Jean-Marie Le Pen, in January, winning the first round of next year’s presidential election.

Le Pen, who appeals to middle class voters, is riding high on voter dissatisfaction over the failure of the mainstream parties to address the problem of Muslim immigration. Since taking her post three months ago, Le Pen has single-handedly catapulted the twin issues of Muslim immigration and French national identity to the top of the French political agenda, and in recent weeks, Le Pen has been a permanent fixture on French prime-time television to discuss the threat to France of a wave of immigrants from Libya.

Doing his part, Gaddafi already has pledged that Europe will be “invaded” by an army of African immigrants. In an interview with the French newspaper Journal du Dimanche on March 6, Gaddafi warned: “You will have immigration. Thousands of people from Libya will invade Europe. There will be no one to stop them any more.”

Earlier, during a visit to Italy in August 2010, Gaddafi demanded €5 billion ($7 billion) a year from the European Union to stop illegal immigration which “threatens to turn Europe black.” At the time, Gaddafi asked: “What will be the reaction of the white Christian Europeans to this mass of hungry, uneducated Africans? We don’t know if Europe will remain an advanced and cohesive continent or if it will be destroyed by this barbarian invasion. We have to imagine that this could happen, but before it does we need to work together.”

Since the revolt in Tunisia in January, nearly 15,000 boat people (more than the total for all of 2010) have arrived on the tiny Italian island of Lampedusa, a 20-square-kilometer island that traditionally has been a major gateway for illegal immigration into the European Union. The panicked French minister for European affairs, Laurent Wauquiez, recently warned that up to 300,000 illegal immigrants could arrive in the European Union from North Africa during 2011. The influx of immigrants from Libya is a “real risk for Europe that must not be underestimated,” he said.

Threatened by Le Pen’s rising popularity, and in urgent need of a political boost, Sarkozy is now using the Libya intervention both to play the role of the respected statesman on the international stage and to address French concerns over mass immigration from North Africa. But during a March 21 interview with France 24, Le Pen dismissed Sarkozy as “a French president who is no longer running anything, who is governing on impulse or emotion, depending on the circumstances.”

Quite apart from the ongoing debate over whether the military intervention in Libya is wise or unwise, legitimate or illegitimate, or if it ultimately will succeed or fail, the European about-face on the use of military force has confirmed the sham that is post-modern European morality, where “cherished” principles are tossed to the wind whenever they are not convenient.

The antiwar idealism of Zapatero and other European fellow travellers is, in its essence, a neo-pacifist reality-evading political façade that Spain and other European governments have hid behind in recent years to avoid military alliance responsibilities in Afghanistan, Iraq, and elsewhere. And in an effort to conceal this duplicity, European post-modern pacifism has served as a high-minded, anti-American bully pulpit from which to bash the United States and Israel for refusing to embrace ephemeral concepts like “soft power.”

Boy George, a poster child for European post-modern popular culture, once described the chameleon-like reality of contemporary European morality: “I’m a man without conviction. I’m a man who doesn’t know.”

Soeren Kern is Senior Analyst for Transatlantic Relations at the Madrid-based Grupo de Estudios Estratégicos / Strategic Studies Group.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/why-are-pacifist-europeans-declaring-war-on-libya/

URLs in this post:

[1] withdraw Spanish troops from Iraq: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3637523.stm

[2] deployed extra troops: http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/europe/07/02/spain.afghan.troops/index.html

[3] forbid Spanish troops: http://www.reuters.com/article/2008/07/02/idUSL0272699

[4] first speech: http://www.fund-culturadepaz.org/spa/ALIANZA/IntervencionPRESIDENTE%20RodriguezZapatero%20en%20UN.pdf

[5] Time magazine: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,901040927-699350,00.html

[6] multilateral group therapy: http://archive.frontpagemag.com/readArticle.aspx?ARTID=5049

[7] José Bono Martínez: http://www.libertaddigital.com/index.php?action=desanoti&cpn=1276250594

[8] José Antonio Alonso Suárez: http://www.gees.org/articulos/ministerio_de_defensa_goodbye-_mr_alonso_5355

[9] Carme Chacón: http://www.elpais.com/articulo/portada/MADRE/MINISTRA/elpepusoceps/20080907elpepspor_5/Tes

[10] Again: http://www.libertaddigital.com/mundo/chacon-en-el-journal-du-dimanche-soy-pacifista-y-el-ejercito-tambien-es-pacifista-1276330617/

[11] unilaterally withdraw Spanish troops: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/pacifist-spain-abandons-nato-allies-in-kosovo/

[12] definitive metamorphosis: http://www.europapress.es/nacional/noticia-iu-zapatero-tiene-subidon-ardor-guerrero-20110321143815.html

[13] Spain is mired in the worst recession: http://pajamasmedia.com../../../../../blog/europe%E2%80%99s-future-lies-ominously-with-spain/

[14] 30 female virgin bodyguards: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-501051/Five-planes-camel-tent-30-female-virgin-bodyguards--Libyan-leader-Gaddafi-arrives-Paris-entourage.html

[15] new opinion poll: http://www.leparisien.fr/election-presidentielle-2012/sondage-marine-le-pen-arrive-devant-sarkozy-dsk-et-hollande-08-03-2011-1348346.php

[16] Journal du Dimanche: http://www.lejdd.fr/Politique/Depeches/2012-Marine-Le-Pen-part-pour-gagner-278959/

[17] threatens to turn Europe black: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1307704/Colonel-Gaddafi-demands-4bn-EU-prevent-immigration-Libya.html

[18] tiny Italian island of Lampedusa: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-12816340

[19] 300,000 illegal immigrants: http://www.lemonde.fr/afrique/article/2011/03/02/wauquiez-qualifie-de-risque-pour-l-europe-l-afflux-de-migrants-en-provenance-de-libye_1487117_3212.html

[20] March 21 interview with France 24: http://www.france24.com/en/20110317-there-are-still-lot-french-people-who-have-totally-caricatured-vision-national-front

[21] soft power: http://www.atlantic-community.org/index/articles/view/Why_Europe_Needs_a_Hard_Power_Reality_Check

[22] Boy George: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karma_Chameleon

 

[Mike Bobbitt]

Further to this post,
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/99510/post-1028677.html#msg1028677

I would note, and Mike Bobbitt can confirm, I have actually contributed money for the upkeep of this site.  Oops.  A real conflict of interest.  How blinking unprofessional.  Do excuse a bit of collar burning.

Mark
Ottawa

Mark, Good2Golf is simply enforcing the site Guidelines, which in this case are designed to help reduce dead links that reference comments from external sources. In essence, we are trying to encourage continuity of the discussion over time, so in the weeks, months and years to come - as external sites are reorganized, evolve, or disappear and links to them cease to work - the conversations here can still be coherent and complete. Hopefully you can agree with the intent, if not the implementation.

I do appreciate if you've helped support the site in the past, but it's important to be clear: the rules are applied uniformly to all, regardless of contributions, subscriber status, rank, civilian standing, etc. Please understand that you were not singled out, and that Good2Golf's friendly reminder was intended as just that. If you still have concerns, please feel free to PM me and I would be happy to discuss. I do appreciate your efforts and contributions.


Cheers
Mike

 

[observor 69]

I put Libya into the search term on Twitter and got the following:


"FMCNL  Canadian Air Force CC-150 as PETRO 14 wkg Malta ACC talking about CHAOS 63/64 on the boom?
about 2 hours ago via web"

I have found a lot of interesting info on the Libya situation using Twitter.

 

[observor 69]

I put Libya into the search term on Twitter and got the following:


"FMCNL  Canadian Air Force CC-150 as PETRO 14 wkg Malta ACC talking about CHAOS 63/64 on the boom?
about 2 hours ago via web"

I have found a lot of interesting info on the Libya situation using Twitter.

And also from same source:

ITALY - Trapani
---------------
MM7.../50-46 Tornado ECR 155Gr arr 20mar
MM70../50-02 Tornado ECR 155Gr arr 20mar
+1 Tornado ECR 155Gr arr 20mar
MM7066/50-03 Tornado IDS 155Gr c/s PANTE arr 20mar
MM70../50-42 Tornado IDS 155Gr c/s PANTE arr 20mar
+1 Tornado IDS 155Gr c/s PANTE arr 20mar
4x Tornado IDS 6St arr 20mar
4x EF-2000 4St arr 20mar
MM7242 +3 F-16C ADF 18St
188734 CF-188 425sqn c/s HUSKY
188739 CF-188 425sqn c/s HUSKY
188752 CF-188 425sqn c/s HUSKY
188756 CF-188 425sqn c/s HUSKY
188759 CF-188 425sqn c/s HUSKY
188760 CF-188 425sqn c/s HUSKY
188769 CF-188 425sqn c/s HUSKY
15004 CC-150 ...sqn c/s HUSKY/PETRO
15005 CC-150 ...sqn c/s HUSKY/PETRO01
LX-N90442 +2 E-3A c/s NATO** ops 18mar/22mar
4x Typhoon FGR4 RAF arr 20mar
77-0352 E-3B USAF c/s SHUCK80

 

[The Bread Guy]

I put Libya into the search term on Twitter and got the following:


"FMCNL  Canadian Air Force CC-150 as PETRO 14 wkg Malta ACC talking about CHAOS 63/64 on the boom?
about 2 hours ago via web"

I have found a lot of interesting info on the Libya situation using Twitter.

This is a Tweet from someone in the Netherlands who monitors radio traffic over the area.  Another source of such info is this feed, maintained by an Italian in Rome who monitors radio traffic also - daily summaries on his blog here.

 

[Rifleman62]

A couple of political comentators are comparing Lybian situation to the famous "Who's on First?" by Abbott and Costello (runtime 6 minutes):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sShMA85pv8M

It is not War or War Lite. It is a Kinetic Military Operation (KMO).

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/24/wh-this-isnt-a-war-its-a-kinetic-military-action/

WH: This isn’t a war, it’s a “kinetic military action”

Extract: It’s not the first euphemism for war that the White House has introduced, either.  Almost two years ago, the administration announced that they would abandon the phrase “global war on terror” and replace it with “overseas contingency operations.”  Unfortunately, not all terrorist attacks happened overseas, as the Fort Hood shooting, the attempt to blow up Times Square, and the Underwear Bomber proved.  In case that term didn’t prove elastic enough, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano introduced “man-caused disasters” to replace “terrorist attack.”

http://www.commentarymagazine.com/2011/03/24/the-libyan-kinetic-military-action/

The Libyan Kinetic Military Action

Rick Richman 03.24.2011 - 7:41 AM

At the State Department press conference yesterday, acting deputy spokesman Mark Toner was asked a straightforward question:

QUESTION: Are we at war in Libya?

MR. TONER: We are implementing UN Security Council Resolution 1973. It is clearly a combat operation or combat mission. As the President made very clear, there will be no U.S. ground force involved in this and that the U.S. role is upfront – frontloaded, if you will, on this. But that’s going to obviously recede into a more – a broader international coalition as we move forward to implement the no-fly zone.

QUESTION: So you would not say we’re at war?
MR. TONER: I think we’ve – you love these sweeping characterizations and I appreciate it.

QUESTION: This isn’t about what I love or do not love. (Laughter.) But the question on the table is: Are we at war in Libya or not?

MR. TONER: I would say it’s a combat mission, clearly. But beyond that, you can parse that out.

So it’s not a war; it’s a frontloaded combat mission that’s obviously going to recede into a coalition.

Later in the afternoon, in a press briefing on Air Force One as it returned to Washington, Deputy National Security Advisor for Strategic Communications Ben Rhodes was asked “if it’s not a war, what’s the right way to characterize this operation?”

MR. RHODES: … I think what we’ve said is that this is a military operation that will be limited in both duration and scope. Our contribution to this military operation that is enforcing a U.N. Security Council resolution is going to be limited — time limited to the front end, and then we’ll shift to a support role. …

Q But it’s not going to war, then?

MR. RHODES: Well, again, I think what we are doing is enforcing a resolution that has a very clear set of goals, which is protecting the Libyan people, averting a humanitarian crisis, and setting up a no-fly zone. Obviously that involves kinetic military action, particularly on the front end. …

So it’s not a war; it’s a kinetic military action that is time-limited and contribution-limited on the front end.

Byron York notes other administration officials using “kinetic” to avoid the word “war.” John Hinderaker calls it emblematic of the administration’s confusion about its role. Combining the Toner/Rhodes formulations, however, it’s clear we are simply in a frontloaded, time-limited, contribution-limited kinetic combat mission that’s obviously going to recede into a coalition, as soon as we parse out who’s in charge of the backloaded part of the … war.

 

[nuclearzombies]

Hmmmmm, I wonder what criteria  must be satisfied in order to call a spade a spade here.  ???

- not enough forces involved?
- death toll not high enough?
- lack of intervention on the ground?

Has "war" become a dirty word, now we have to cover it with clever euphamism? I must say though, "Kintetic Military Operation" does hav a nice ring to it..... :2c:

 

[a_majoor]

More US fallout. Who is in charge of this thing, really?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-libya-mess-the-work-of-nsc-chief-tom-donilon/

Is Libya Mess the Work of NSC Chief Tom Donilon?

Posted By Richard Pollock On March 25, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | 9 Comments

President Obama’s war in Libya is angering the left and right, of both parties. His muddled policy pronouncements over Libya are sowing discord within NATO. His international coalition is collapsing, with Germany now withdrawing its forces from the military operation. Congress is infuriated over the failure of notification under the War Powers Act. Rep. Dennis Kucinich says Obama’s actions constitute an “impeachable offense.”

There is the near universal confusion about what the American military’s mission in Libya is. Who is calling the shots on deploying military assets? What is the end game?

Finally, there is astonishment that the president of the United States departed for a routine overseas trip on the eve of war.

At the center of an increasingly incoherent policy is the president’s national security advisor, Thomas E. Donilon, and Washington insiders are privately pointing a finger at him.

Recall that Donilon’s immediate predecessor, Gen. Jim Jones, privately told Bob Woodward [1] that Donilon was too inexperienced to be the head of the White House’s National Security Council. In his book Obama’s Wars, Woodward writes that Jones felt Donilon’s lack of overseas experience was a major liability: “You have no credibility with the military,” Jones told Donilon [2].

Woodward cites this further damaging assessment [1] of Donilon by General Jones:

    You frequently pop off with absolute declarations about places you’ve never been, leaders you’ve never met, or colleagues you work with.

Woodward also discusses a moment in which Donilon almost caused Defense Secretary Robert Gates to storm out of White House meeting:

    Donilon’s sound-offs and strong spur-of-the-moment opinions, especially about one general, had offended him so much at an Oval Office meeting that he (Gates) nearly walked out.

Current Defense Secretary Robert Gates further told Woodward that Donilon would be a “complete disaster [3]” as the president’s national security advisor. After Donilon was appointed to the post, Gates publicy stepped back [4] from his Woodward comments, but the damage was done.

Tom Donilon’s other major liability is his long-time reputation as a harsh political operative. He learned the art of sharp elbowed politics as a 23-year-old assistant to Jimmy Carter’s chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan. Jordan dispatched him to the 1980 Democratic National Convention to do President Carter’s dirty work. He successfully shot down Senator Ted Kennedy’s challenge to the president.

But Donilon may be best-known as the chief lobbyist for government-backed mortgage giant Fannie Mae — just before it imploded. For six years he was a fierce fighter at Fannie Mae, fending off reform efforts by Republicans to rein in the federal agency. He also was deceptive about the agency’s troubles. According to ABC News, he painted a rosy picture [5] of the agency while it was going south:

    Donilon is described as someone who lobbied for and helped paint a rosy picture of Fannie Mae’s financial health to the company’s board. He did so at a time when Fannie Mae faced accusations that it was misstating its earnings from 1998 to 2004.

A 2006 federal investigation caught [6] Donilon as part of a group of Fannie Mae executives who exchanged “scripts” in advance of meetings of the agency’s independent compensation committee. When Fannie Mae’s independent regulator — the Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight — sought to investigate Fannie Mae, Donilon aggressively attacked it. David Frum wrote [7]: “Donilon is the ultimate Democratic Party politico.”

The well-connected Donilon initially served as Obama’s transition chief at the State Department, and hoped to land a top job there. His controversial role at Fannie Mae convinced Obama that Donilon would never receive Senate confirmation, so he landed at the NSC.

A number of State Department officials have told PJM that when they see what looks like seat-of-the pants management, it looks like Donilon’s work: “This is pure Tom Donilon,” a USAID official told told PJM. “He makes it up as he goes along.” The official spoke to PJM on the condition of anonymity.

On the conservative side of the fence, the analysis about Donilon isn’t much better. Andy McCarthy of the National Review Institute told PJM the administration’s Libyan operation “looks like what you would expect it would look like if they didn’t have a plan going in and they didn’t have an objective.”

As the Libya adventure goes south, Washington seems to be entering the fingerpointing stage. Even now, so early in the deployment, many issues seem to point to strategic military and diplomatic blunders, and much of them fall onto Tom Donilon’s desk.

For example, few are clear even now whether the U.S. military mission is to protect Libyan civilians or to topple the regime of Col. Muammar Gaddafi. The NATO alliance itself appears to be fracturing. From the NATO command in Brussels there is reported criticism [8] of the “hastily improvised nature of the military coalition.” The German military now has entirely pulled out its military forces [9] from the Libyan coalition. The Brits and Americans are in a public brawl as to whether or not Gaddafi should be assassinated. Turkey has tried to exercise a veto about NATO leadership.

And there is near universal uncertainty about whether the continuing military action will be directed by the U.S., NATO, or a new unspecified international coalition. “The NSC is kind of the hub that’s the intersection between intelligence, national security and the military,” McCarthy says. “It seems to be a failing of arriving at a coherent strategy from all those different components of government.” This is all Donilon’s portfolio.

And how could Donilon permit President Obama to take a whirlwind tour of Latin America as a major wartime mission was getting underway? The State Department source called it “purely astonishing.”

There also is the rupture with Congress and liberal Democrats. Donilon, a consummate political operative, should have foreseen the need to formally notify Congress under the War Powers Act, which requires formal notification of Congress when military hostilities begin. And the White House did not reach out with kid gloves to the party’s left wing, who are enraged by the use of military force in a third Muslim country.

Certainly there is enough blame to go around, from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to Secretary Gates and President Obama. But the nexus of the entire operation is Thomas Donilon, and fingers seem to be pointing at him as the possible fall guy.

In addition to President Obama, Donlion enjoys the confidence of Vice President Joe Biden: Donilon served as a close confidant to Biden in the late 80s. When Biden was chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, Donilon was a key player in the destruction [10] of Supreme Court nominee Robert Bork. He was also part of a close-knit group of advisors behind Biden’s presidential bid in 2007. Brother Mike Donilon currently serves as counselor to the vice president, and wife Cathy Russell is Jill Biden’s chief of staff. Few were willing to talk publicly about Donilon. Typical was this statement from a former political colleague:

    Everybody I know who knows Tom Donilon wouldn’t say that he his unqualified — even if they believe he is. This is mostly due to the fact they are all former campaign colleagues, or they want to curry favor with him.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/is-libya-mess-the-work-of-nsc-chief-tom-donilon/

URLs in this post:

[1] privately told Bob Woodward: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/08/tom-donilon-disaster-national-security-advisor_n_755708.html

[2] Jones told Donilon: http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=bob+woodward+obama+wars+tom+donilon+washington+post&xa=P4YYIBJvmGN15Xb8I1154Q--%2C1301001001&fr=mcafee&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=bob+woodward+obama+wars+tom+donilon+washington+post&d=4800532370361130&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=f31ce26b,d63474ef&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=QflSgjILmifOR43bUU0hag--

[3] complete disaster: http://74.6.238.254/search/srpcache?ei=UTF-8&p=bob+woodward+tom+donilon+complete+disaster+gates&xa=nQnGLp9h79NeDWlJQ4ZgqQ--%2C1301002008&fr=mcafee&u=http://cc.bingj.com/cache.aspx?q=bob+woodward+tom+donilon+complete+disaster+gates&d=5052784385393155&mkt=en-US&setlang=en-US&w=cfe518ec,1073a77a&icp=1&.intl=us&sig=FKInB43MTw.bUjKng2TbSw--

[4] stepped back: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43327.html

[5] painted a rosy picture: http://beforeitsnews.com/story/209/353/Before_Advising_Obama_on_National_Security,_Donilon_Lobbied_for_Fannie_Mae,_Counseled_Citibank,_Goldman_Sachs.html

[6] caught: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1010/43348.html

[7] wrote: http://www.frumforum.com/donilons-the-wrong-man-for-the-job

[8] criticism: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/03/21/501364/main20045649.shtml

[9] entirely pulled out its military forces: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1368693/Libya-war-Germans-pull-forces-NATO-Libyan-coalition-falls-apart.html

[10] destruction: http://spectator.org/archives/2010/10/11/a-political-hack-and-fannie-ma/print

 

[dapaterson]

The Star is reporting that a Canadian LGen will be put in charge of the NATO efforts:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/960483--canadian-general-taking-over-command-of-nato-s-mission-in-libya?bn=1

A senior White House official says a Canadian will take over command of the NATO mission in Libya.

The official says Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard, stationed in Naples, has been designated by NATO as head of the alliance's military campaign in Libya.

Bio at: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=33

 

[Rifleman62]

Beat me to the report David!

Same report on US TV and radio down in Texas.

Going now to the Warrior and Family Support Centre at Fort Sam. Lots of folks there are atuned to what goes on in Canada (and Quebec). Be interesting to hear any comments.

 

[OldSolduer]

The Star is reporting that a Canadian LGen will be put in charge of the NATO efforts:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/960483--canadian-general-taking-over-command-of-nato-s-mission-in-libya?bn=1


Bio at: http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dsa-dns/sa-ns/ab/sobv-vbos-eng.asp?mAction=View&mBiographyID=33

Just how did that happen? I'm perplexed.....