Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

[old medic]

CNN blog

[7:56 p.m. Sunday ET, 1:56 a.m. Monday in Libya] A member of the Libyan opposition told CNN that the Gadhafi government collected bodies of people killed in fighting in the past week and displayed them over the weekend, trying to show they were killed by coalition airstrikes. The claim by Ahmed Gebreel, who cited eyewitnesses and medical officials, could not be verified by CNN.

 

[The Bread Guy]

More on who (eventually) may be in charge, from the U.S.'s defense.gov page :

.... (Defense Secretary Robert M.) Gates said what’s important to President Barack Obama in the ongoing military effort is “a meaningful coalition, meaning other countries making serious military contributions so the United States isn’t carrying the pre-eminent responsibility for an indefinite period of time.”

Obama limited the U.S. contribution to “no boots on the ground,” the secretary said, but “we agreed to use our unique capabilities … at the front end of this process [and] expected in a matter of days to be able to turn over the primary responsibility to others.”

“We will continue to support the coalition, be a member of the coalition, we will have a military role in the coalition but we will not have a preeminent role,” the secretary said.

U.S. Africa Command has taken the military lead in the initial fighting, Gates cited possibilities for a transition to leadership by the international coalition.

“One is British and French leadership, another is the use of the NATO machinery, he said. “We just have to work out the command and control that is most accommodating to all coalition members.”

Gates said the Arab League reaffirmed its support today of the military effort in Libya and that this action was “very important, because the initiative first came from those in the region.”

The coalition is not operating as a NATO mission, Gates said, because of sensitivity on the part of the Arab League to being seen to be operating under a NATO umbrella. He added it may be possible to “work out NATO’s command and control machinery without it being a NATO mission and without a NATO flag.” ....

 

[GR66]

We just don't seem capable of learning from the past.  If the Arab League wanted the no-fly zone we should have put them in charge of enforcing it.  Their members have enough aircraft to do the job and we (the west) could have provided guidance, intel, EW support, logistics and even fighter cover for their strike aircraft.  That way it would be fellow Arabs making the calls on how far to go in enforcing the resolution (just taking aircraft in the air, AD facilities, advancing ground units, etc) instead of being able to sit back and criticize the way we're doing what they asked for. 

At the very least an Arab League member should have been placed in command of the operation and the member states forced to provided visible military and political support for the operation.  If they didn't have the balls to actually do any of the heavy lifting and be prepared to face the heat of the consequences of the actions, then we could reasonably sit back and say that the regional players aren't willing to make the call so we, as outsiders, shouldn't enforce OUR will in this civil war. 

Of course they never would have agreed to that due to their own ongoing actions in other parts of the Arab world, but by not forcing them to put their cards on the table we've put ourselves in a situation where we have very few opportunities (in my opinion anyway) to come out as "winners".

 

[Edward Campbell]

Things are already going as "planned" according to this report from the Associated Press via the Globe and Mail:

Extract:
"The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.

The Arab League's support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The UN authorized not only a no-fly zone but also “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.

Amr Moussa says the military operations have gone beyond what the Arab League backed. Mr. Moussa has told reporters Sunday that “what happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives.” He says “what we want is civilians' protection not shelling more civilians.”"

I'm glad to see the Arab League is operating true to form: two faced.

And, speaking of "two faced" this is from the Globe and Mail:

"Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin on Monday likened the UN Security Council resolution supporting military action in Libya to medieval calls for crusades."

In a way this, alone, justifies the Libyan operation: it Russia's against something then it is, probably, a good thing. Russia's interests and our interests rarely if ever coincide, 1941-45 notwithstanding - and they were coincidental then, not the same, they just come close together from happenstance.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Whatever one may think of the intervention, this is a lovely vivisection of the Canadian left by Terry Glavin, a small excerpt:

"Don't Mention The War": Libya And The Canadian Left.
http://transmontanus.blogspot.com/2011/03/dont-mention-war-libya-and-canadian.html

...
It is more than amusing in the way one of the NDP's rising stars, last seen supporting a campaign to lose the New and change the name of the NDP to the Democratic Party to cash in on Barack Obama's already-vanished cachet, is expressing his happiness with last week's UN Security Council resolution. Michael Byers likes it because it makes the UN look good (I know, I know, but nevermind), the Arab League approves (!), it might even be as important as "the Pinochet case," and it makes Obama look good (go figure that).
http://thetyee.ca/Opinion/2011/03/18/Resolution1973/

Good for Byers, but it is a little bit transparent in the way he manages to bring in Kosovo, Rwanda and Darfur, but deftly avoids mention Afghanistan, which would perhaps invite comparisons that would be maybe too shy-making. But I'm going to mention the war anyway. Canada's engagement in Afghanistan is also part of a UN-sanctioned multilateral effort, authorized and renewed by several Security Council resolutions, and it involves a military alliance of 43 nations that was and remains welcomed by the overwhelming majority of Afghans. This puts Byers in the role of Basil in that scene from Fawlty Towers, the one with the German tourists in the restaurant. Basil tells the wait staff: "Listen, don't mention the war! I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it all right."

I am not intending to be mean, but really...

Yes you are, Mr Glavin ;D.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

This from CBC.ca

Canadian CF-18 fighter jets flew their first mission to enforce a UN no-fly zone over Libya Monday, as debate on Canada's role in the military intervention was expected to get underway in the House of Commons.

The CF-18s, which flew out of a base in Trapani Italy, did not participate in a bombing mission, instead serving as armed escorts for fighters of another nation that conducted the bombing. But Canadian planes are expected to begin bombing missions as soon as Monday night.

Defence Minister Peter MacKay was expected to lead off the debate in the House of Commons, but its start time was delayed by other House business.

CBC News has learned that Conservative House Leader John Baird is also seeking unanimous consent from the opposition parties on a motion that could be introduced following question period later Monday afternoon ....

 

[Edward Campbell]

I agree with Prof. Jennifer Welsh who has explained in this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, why we are making a potentially very unpleasant mountain out of a pissant mole hill:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/force-of-international-military-transforms-libyas-arab-spring-into-civil-war/article1948773/

Force of international military transforms Libya’s Arab Spring into civil war

JENNIFER M. WELSH

Special to Globe and Mail Update
Published Sunday, Mar. 20, 2011

Early evening on Saturday, European time, the full force of Operation Odyssey Dawn – the military mission hastily assembled by the French, British, American, Canadians, and other European and Arab partners – became apparent to Moammar Gadhafi's forces and the people of Western Libya.

This massive show of military might will transform, in an instant, the grass-roots Arab Spring into an internationalized civil war. And despite America's squeamishness about using military force without an 'exit strategy' (supposedly the great lesson of Vietnam), it isn't at all clear what the end game will be.

Earlier this week, it all looked very different: an unprecedented level of international consensus around the need to protect civilians, particularly in and around Benghazi, and a new lease on life for the United Nations. The Arab League – comprised of Mr. Gadhafi's regional neighbours – had requested the Security Council to impose a no-fly zone in order to save ordinary Libyans from potential slaughter. The Security Council looked ready to respond, and without the heavy hand of the United States. It was the UK, France, and Lebanon that led the diplomatic charge.

But the UN Resolution 1973 (2011) went further than a no-fly zone. It also contained ambiguities about the ultimate goal of international action, which could come back to haunt its drafters and split apart the international consensus. Indeed, it was precisely these ambiguities which led five key countries on the Security Council (China, Russia, India, Brazil and Germany) to abstain. The Council authorized 'all necessary means' to protect civilians, but also 'civilian populated areas'. With this latter phrase, the international community seemed to be saying to Mr. Gadhafi, 'there are certain cities you cannot attack' – thereby inserting itself into a domestic struggle. U.S. President Barack Obama went even further, giving Mr. Gadhafi an ultimatum to pull back from key cities he had already taken.

There are clearly some members of the new coalition of the willing that are committed to seeing Mr. Gadhafi go; that is the definition of success. However, for other members of the international community (including in the Arab League), the objective is not to intervene decisively on one side of a civil war. It is to protect civilians and bring about the cessation of violence so that a political process can take root. In other words, Libyans must decide their future for themselves.

So what would happen if Mr. Gadhafi offered another cease-fire? Will Operation Odyssey Dawn tolerate a political compromise? Or, is this mission at bottom about the removal of Mr. Gadhafi and his supporters from the country? Every government, including the Canadian one, has to have an answer to this question – not only for domestic publics, but for the Libyan people.

Jennifer M. Welsh is a professor of international relations at the University of Oxford, Somerville College.

I think I understand why this little war might be in the immediate (Mar/Apr/May) best interests of the sitting government of Canada and I also think I can see France’s self interest, too, but, for the life of me, I cannot fathom why any strategically responsible governments are involved.

I am in partial agreement with Neil Reynolds who authored this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/where-was-teddy-roosevelt-when-we-needed-him/article1948109/?from=sec385

Where was Teddy Roosevelt when we needed him?

NEIL REYNOLDS

From Monday's Globe and Mail
Published Monday, Mar. 21, 2011

Theodore Roosevelt was explicit in his assertion of an American right to use military force against other countries for ethical reasons. For Roosevelt, it wasn’t necessary that the miscreant country had first slaughtered large numbers of its own people. The Monroe Doctrine had famously proclaimed an American right to use force to prevent (or reverse) European intervention in the Western Hemisphere. Roosevelt went further, enunciating an American right to land soldiers anywhere to avert “chronic wrongdoing.” Although this justification might appear a bit expansive, the question remains: Where was Teddy Roosevelt when we so needed him in the past few weeks? Wherever he was, he wasn’t in the White House.

For all practical purposes, the United States is the only country on Earth either willing or able to wage war for ethical (or mostly ethical) purposes. Occasionally, it acts (as it did in Serbia in 1999). Often, though, it doesn’t (as it didn’t in Rwanda in 1994). Bill Clinton made the call in both cases.

In the case of the Libyan people’s uprising, alas, the U.S. couldn’t make up its mind – the moral equivalent of taking a pass. For three weeks, notwithstanding the appeals of the freedom fighters, President Barack Obama dithered – further empowering Moammar Gadhafi. Inexorably, the U.S. President allowed a small war against a disoriented dictator to turn into a bigger war against a passably menacing Arab warrior.

The global reality is, there are only two ways to punish and stop chronic wrongdoing by rogue states. You delegate the job to the U.S., or you delegate it to the United Nations. Usually, the UN is a waste of time. Usually, China and Russia veto ethical interventions. Last week, much to their credit, they didn’t. In the end, though, the Russian and Chinese decisions didn’t matter. It was, once again, the American decision that mattered.

In an eloquent paper (The ‘Bush Doctrine’: Can Preventive War Be Justified?), U.S. legal scholars Robert Delahunty (University of St. Thomas at Minneapolis) and John Yoo (University of California at Berkeley) note that “hundreds of wars” have been waged, in violation of UN Charter rules on the use of force, during the brief existence of the UN Security Council. It would be “an obvious folly,” these scholars say, to rely on the Security Council to prevent genocide.

“When the Great Powers are in agreement, the elaborate charades of the Security Council are unnecessary,” Profs. Delahunty and Yoo assert with impeccable logic. “When these powers do not agree, the UN is impotent.” By elimination, this left the U.S. last week as the sole alternative to silent surrender. (France and Britain, early champions of intervention, would never have gone it alone.)

Almost every U.S. president has asserted a right to use force for preventive reasons. Mr. Obama aside, modern presidents (Ronald Reagan, Mr. Clinton, George W. Bush) have asserted a corollary right: military intervention for protective reasons. Mr. Reagan memorably recognized the right of freedom fighters “to secure rights that have been ours since birth.” Mr. Clinton, for his part, justified his intervention in Serbia on moral grounds alone: to end “ethnic cleansing.”

The civilized world needs to recognize the strategic necessity of U.S. superpower intervention in such situations. If preventive war is justified, so is protective war: thus, the doctrine of “responsibility to protect.” For democracies, an ethical war is a defensive war. By this standard, Canada should have committed to the Libyan cause earlier, too: Our support now, and our offer of CF-18 fighter jets, came too late to make a difference.

Mr. Obama’s refusal to intervene promptly in Libya, however, was utterly tragic. This wasn’t Iraq. This wasn’t Afghanistan. This was a simple police action, widely endorsed, against an outlaw state. Done expeditiously, the U.S. could probably have ended Col. Gadhafi’s macabre reign in a matter of days, if not hours. By the time the Security Council convened, with thousands of Libyans already dead or wounded, Col. Gadhafi’s regime was bragging that it would crush the remnants of the rebellion within days.

We obviously don’t know what happens next – though we should assume that Col. Gadhafi’s ceasefire declaration on Friday was purely strategic. We do know, as Winston Churchill once noted, that nothing whatsoever is gained by putting off a just war.

OK, where do I disagree? Essentially, I disagree with this statement: ”If preventive war is justified, so is protective war: thus, the doctrine of ‘responsibility to protect.’” I, at least, see a major difference between preventive war – which I agree is justified, and protective war – which I am not convinced can be justified or need by, by definition, even ‘just.’

Churchill was right: nothing is gained by avoiding a just war. I am not convinced the Libyan adventure is, in any meaningful way, just or even justifiable.

But, on balance: Welsh is still right and Reynolds is not right enough.

 

[CougarKing]

Meanwhile...

Listen: Secret Libya Psyops, Caught by Online Sleuths

By Noah Shachtman March 20, 2011 | 7:28 pm |

The U.S. military has dispatched one of its secret propaganda planes to the skies around Libya. And that “Commando Solo” aircraft is telling Libyan ships to remain in port – or risk NATO retaliation.

We know this, not because some Pentagon official said so, but because one Dutch radio geek is monitoring the airwaves for information about Operation Odyssey Dawn — and tweeting the surprisingly-detailed results. On Sunday alone, “Huub” has identified the tail numbers, call signs, and movements of dozens of NATO aircraft: Italian fighter jets, American tankers, British aerial spies, U.S. bombers, and the Commando Solo psyops plane (pictured).

“If you attempt to leave port, you will be attacked and destroyed immediately,” the aircraft broadcasted late Sunday night.


It’s the kind of information that the American military typically tries to obscure, at least until a mission is over. But Huub is just a single node in a sprawling online network that trawls the airwaves for clues to military operations.

EC-130J Commando Solo PSYOPS aircraft

link

 

[The Bread Guy]

Initial reports from latest briefing from AFRICOM/Theatre Commander ....

Fox News:

The U.N-approved no-fly zone over Libya is working and will soon be expanded to Tripoli as aircraft from additional coalition countries arrive in the region, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday.

U.S. Army General Carter Ham told a Pentagon briefing that coalition air forces were continuing missions to sustain the no-fly zone and that Libyan ground forces were moving south from rebel-held Benghazi showing "little will or capability" to operate.

Ham said U.S. and U.K. forces launched another 12 Tomahawk cruise missiles over the past 24 hours at sites controlled by Libyan leader Col. Muammar Qaddafi. The targets included regime command and control facilities, a surface-to-surface missile site and an air defense station, according to Ham, the operation commander who added that there was no direct coordination among allies and anti-Qaddafi rebels ....

Reuters (1):

The U.N.-approved no-fly zone over Libya is expanding and will soon cover a 1,000-km area as aircraft from additional coalition countries arrive in the region, the head of U.S. Africa Command said Monday.

Army General Carter Ham told a Pentagon briefing that coalition air forces were continuing to fly missions to sustain the no-fly zone and that Libyan ground forces were moving south from rebel-held Benghazi showing "little will or capability" to operate.

Reuters (2):

U.S. and coalition military forces enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya are there to protect civilians and not to provide close-air support for opposition forces fighting Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, the head of U.S. Africa Command said on Monday.

Army General Carter Ham said the military mission in Libya was "very clear" and he was not concerned that the objectives would grow and change in the coming days. He said he had no orders to directly attack the Libyan leader.

The Associated Press:

The U.S. commander in Africa says coalition jets fired 12 more cruise missiles at Libyan missile, command and air defense sites as they continued to press a no-fly zone over the North African nation.

The attacks Monday followed a weekend of punishing air strikes aimed at preventing Moammar Gadhafi's forces from killing civilians seeking his ouster.

Asked what the coalition knows about the whereabouts of Gadhafi, Gen. Carter Ham said essentially, not much. Speaking by video conference from his headquarters in Germany, Ham told Pentagon reporters that the international coalition is focusing instead on knocking out Libya's ability to command and control its forces ....

 

[Redeye]

Meanwhile...

(snipped from pasted article)
We know this, not because some Pentagon official said so, but because one Dutch radio geek is monitoring the airwaves for information about Operation Odyssey Dawn — and tweeting the surprisingly-detailed results. On Sunday alone, “Huub” has identified the tail numbers, call signs, and movements of dozens of NATO aircraft: Italian fighter jets, American tankers, British aerial spies, U.S. bombers, and the Commando Solo psyops plane (pictured).

His Twitter feed is @FMCNL if anyone's interested.

Closely spaced aircraft flew over Halifax this afternoon headed SW, not that I'm an expert but they were closer than I think minimum spacing for civil aviation is.  Didn't see what they were though... most interesting.

 

[MarkOttawa]

At the briefing MND MacKay also said a second six-pack of Hornets (presumably from Cold Lake) was on stand-by to deploy for the Libyan theatre if needed (waiting for an "ask" from whoever is in charge of the op) and if the gov't agrees.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

More on Italians (will Canadian media notice much?):

Italy: Doing More than Playing Host for Libyan Operations
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a540370c1-baad-41ba-a4fc-a5d86f645ecc&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Italy is helping fill the gap in the suppression of enemy air defense role over Libya, with four SEAD Tornado ECR involved in the operation.

Despite restrictive rules of engagement to avoid hurting bystandards, Italian Gen. Biagio Abrate, the chief of the joint defense staff, confirms the Tornado’s are authorized to fire their HARM missions, not just in self-defense roles but also to suppress radars. The Tornado ECRs have the ability to more precisely target HARM missiles than some other aircraft capable of shooting the anti-radar weapon. The Tornado ECRs provide the only European capability to refine HARM targeting; Germany also operates the aircraft, but is refusing to participate.

The Tornado ECRs are being escorted by four Italy F-16 Block 15s for protection against air threats (although Libya has not had any aircraft flying since the commencement of military operations).

Italy also has cleared partners to base their assets at a variety of facilities, including Gioia del Colle and Amendola in Puglia, Aviano in north-eastern Italy, Trapani and Sigonella in Sicily, and Decimomannu in Sardinia. Other bases could be used as many additional allied aircraft are reaching Italy. The NATO CAOC in Poggio Renatico is also fully operational, with other C4I installations heavily involved

Meanwhile, the Italian air force has put its own air defense system on alert, including fixed and mobile radars, as well as Eurofighter Typhoon fighters; the latter are ready to be scrambled within 15 min. from Gioia del Colle and Trapani.

The air force is also deploying Spada point defense anti-aircraft batteries to protect the main operating bases.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[The Bread Guy]

More on "who's in charge" from today's briefing by AFRICOM's boss, via Wired.com:

.... Ham said he doesn’t see his mission changing, and he said his focus over the coming days is extending the no-fly zone westward to Tripoli, covering about 1000 kilometers of Libyan territory. But his successor might have a different… interpretation of when Gadhafi forces become legit targets. Over the next several days, Ham will transition command to an as-yet-unspecified multinational command entity. The French and British are already more gung-ho about taking Gadhafi down than the U.S. is.

And even before the next command takes over, Ham said that “well over half” of the 70 to 80 sorties that coalition aircraft flew over Libya on Monday weren’t U.S. jets. Maybe those non-U.S. pilots draw less strict distinctions between rebel fighters and Libyan civilians.

 

[The Bread Guy]

More on Italians (will Canadian media notice much?):

Italy: Doing More than Playing Host for Libyan Operations
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&newspaperUserId=27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a540370c1-baad-41ba-a4fc-a5d86f645ecc&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest

Mark
Ottawa

Probably only outlets like this, or some medium- to small-market outlets with significant Italian populations in the readership.

BTW, nice consolidated map from Radio Deutsche Welle attached.

 

[Redeye]

I think the US plans to hand over command to another party as soon as feasible, and I think they'd love it if an Arab League state was in charge.  They seem interested just in the idea of making sure Arab states participate, which is why they've lobbied for Qatar and the UAE to get involved.

We just don't seem capable of learning from the past.  If the Arab League wanted the no-fly zone we should have put them in charge of enforcing it.  Their members have enough aircraft to do the job and we (the west) could have provided guidance, intel, EW support, logistics and even fighter cover for their strike aircraft.  That way it would be fellow Arabs making the calls on how far to go in enforcing the resolution (just taking aircraft in the air, AD facilities, advancing ground units, etc) instead of being able to sit back and criticize the way we're doing what they asked for. 

At the very least an Arab League member should have been placed in command of the operation and the member states forced to provided visible military and political support for the operation.  If they didn't have the balls to actually do any of the heavy lifting and be prepared to face the heat of the consequences of the actions, then we could reasonably sit back and say that the regional players aren't willing to make the call so we, as outsiders, shouldn't enforce OUR will in this civil war. 

Of course they never would have agreed to that due to their own ongoing actions in other parts of the Arab world, but by not forcing them to put their cards on the table we've put ourselves in a situation where we have very few opportunities (in my opinion anyway) to come out as "winners".

 

[Container]

Are the jets really firing "cruise missles"? I was under the impression that generally speaking a cruise missle was a naval platform......that or a bomber function.

Any experts round here'?

 

[PuckChaser]

Are the jets really firing "cruise missles"? I was under the impression that generally speaking a cruise missle was a naval platform......that or a bomber function.

Any experts round here'?

I know the B52 is large enough to launch cruise missiles, but that's the only aerial platform I can think of.

 

[The Bread Guy]

More on the House of Commons action coming up, via Dow Jones wire:

.... (Defence Minister Peter MacKay) said there will be a "take note" debate and motion in the House of Commons later Monday, which will give all political parties an opportunity to flesh out their positions with regards to the mission.

 

[MarkOttawa]

Belgians in too:
http://english.cri.cn/6966/2011/03/20/1821s627456.htm

The Belgian fighter jets and a minesweeper will be ready for military actions against Libya on Monday, as Belgian defense chief warned Sunday that the international military operation could cause a large number of casualties.

Belgium has promised to contribute eight Belgian F-16 fighter-bombers and a minesweeper to the international military operation against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.

A senior Belgian military official, quoted by the Belga news agency, announced Sunday that the jets, which have arrived at Araxos air base in Greece, would be ready for combat on Monday.

A total of 200 Beglian military staff will join the mission, the official said.

Meanwhile, Belgian Defense Minister Pieter De Crem told Belgian radio that "the ultimate goal is to topple the Gaddafi regime [not a unified coalition party line] and establish a dignified society for the Libyan people."

However, he warned that the military operation could take a long period of time and cause heavy casualties...

Active:
http://www.expatica.com/be/news/belgian-news/belgian-f-16s-conduct-first-libya-operation_137228.html

Belgian F-16 jets on Monday conducted the country's first Libya operation as part of the international coalition enforcing a UN resolution, Defence Minister Pieter De Crem told parliament.

"During the coalition missions carried out by our F-16 detachment -- this operation is currently under way with a first mission launched a little before 1500 local (1400 GMT) -- NATO rules of engagement will apply," De Crem said.

"They will be completed by specific rules of engagement to ensure the protection of civilians," he added.

A source close to the government said four fighters were involved...

Mark
Ottawa

 

[MarkOttawa]

As for a new command structure:

Command Conflict
Turkey Blocks NATO Mission in Libya
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752222,00.html#ref=nlint

The US wants to hand over command of Operation Odyssey Dawn to another country within a matter of days, but so far NATO has been unable to reach an agreement on taking control of the implementation of the no-fly zone in Libya. Turkey is leading the objections.

...On Monday, however, it didn't look likely that a NATO role would develop as quickly as the US government might like.

So far, the NATO alliance has been unable to reach an agreement on participation in the military implementation of the no-fly zone. Turkey is resisting the measure and is calling for a new review of other possible measures the alliance could take in Libya. Ankara has also called for an immediate Western cease-fire, with Turkish officials calling on NATO to give greater consideration in its discussions to the possibility of civilian deaths, a NATO diplomat told the news agency AFP under the condition of anonymity. Ankara has rejected any NATO intervention against Libya, including the implementation of a no-fly zone.

"Military intervention by NATO in Libya or any other country would be totally counterproductive," Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said, according to the Anatolia news agency on Monday. "In addition to being counterproductive, such an operation could have dangerous consequences."

Turkey appears to be concerned about its standing in the Muslim world...

Over the weekend, the 28 NATO member states unsuccessfully debated a possible role for the military alliance in the implementation of the no-fly zone approved by the United Nations on Thursday. On Monday, European Union ambassadors were meeting in Brussels ahead of a further meeting of their NATO counterparts the same day in an attempt to hammer out an agreement for common action. NATO member states are hoping to reach an agreement on monitoring the UN's no-fly zone, but so far they have only found unanimity on the need for a weapons embargo on Libya.

NATO decisions must be taken unanimously, but this week the alliance is showing greater division than it has in some time. Diplomats aren't placing the blame squarely on Turkey, either [emphasis added]. France is also reportedly blocking an agreement because it does not want to turn command for the operations over to the alliance. Several NATO partners commented critically on the NATO Council meeting on Sunday, saying that France, Britain and the United States were pushing ahead and not doing enough to inform their partners. Currently, no agreement is expected before Tuesday...

Mark
Ottawa