Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

[The Bread Guy]

The Airforce certainly has highly-paid Public Affairs Officers 

As does the Navy, according to the media advisory:

.... Major-General Tom Lawson, Assistant Chief of the Air Staff and Commodore John Newton, Director General Naval Personnel and Acting Deputy Commander of Maritime Command will provide an update on the Canadian Forces’ contribution and will answer questions from the media ....

 

[CountDC]

You mean the complete absence of debris, and when you zoom in on the photo (in the source link) it looks to be pixilated to a different degree than the surrounding square?

Nah....I wouldn't worry about it; I'm sure it's legit 

Bingo!! So not just my eyes after all.

 

[WingsofFury]

Bombs on time on target. CF-18's take out an ammunitions dump and another target in day and night missions in Libya.

CF-18’s Begin Air Interdiction Sorties **

**Links to an article on my blog**

 

[Journeyman]

**Links to an article on my blog**

You're going going to be another Mark"look what I wrote, look what I wrote"Ottawa are you?  :

If so, see here

 

[MarkOttawa]

Last of the likely NATO participants is in--sort of:
http://www.aviationweek.com/aw/blogs/defense/index.jsp?plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3a27ec4a53-dcc8-42d0-bd3a-01329aef79a7Post%3a20f24984-5f3b-4933-bd0a-930572e96ff1

...
Meanwhile, the Netherlands also has decided to contribute, with six F-16s and a KDC-10 tanker, as well as a mine-hunter to help enforce the arms embargo against Libya.

But the Netherlands is putting limits on its contribution. The F-16s will not strike ground targets or enforce the no-fly zone. They will be used only for intelligence and surveillance roles, or to interdict arms shipments, at least as long as NATO's role has not been expanded to the other tasks.

Same link also notes Rafales now flying missions off CDG.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[observor 69]

The Airforce certainly has highly-paid Public Affairs Officers 

Seems it goes on in the British  Army also:  :nod:

"British military spokesman Major General John Lorimer said the missile strike was just a first step, as international forces seek to knock out air defences so they can enforce the no-fly zone with jets patrolling the skies.
"UK and partner forces remain engaged in ongoing operations as we seek to ensure that Colonel Kadhafi and his forces understand that the international community will not stand by and watch them kill civilians," he said."


http://www.focus-fen.net/?id=n245000

 

[Bo]

Stop the US War Against Libya and Bahrain


by The International Action Center

 
Global Research, March 19, 2011
The International Action Center 


The International Action Center calls on all anti-war and social justice activists to call Emergency Response STOP THE U.S. WAR AGAINST LIBYA AND BAHRAIN actions in their areas on Friday, March 18 or Saturday, Marcy 19, or to mobilize support for any already existing anti-war demonstrations called to mark the anniversary of the Iraq War, with this statement and signs to STOP THE U.S. WAR AGAINST LIBYA AND BAHRAIN, as well as to intensify the mobilization for the April 9th and 10th Anti-War demonstrations in New York and San Francisco called by the United National Antiwar Committee.


On March 17, 2011, Washington showed its true intentions by pushing through a U.N. Security Council resolution that amounts to a declaration of war on the government and people of Libya.

A U.S. attack is the worst possible thing that could happen to the people of Libya. It also puts the unfolding Arab revolutions, which have inspired people across North Africa and Western Asia, in the gravest danger.

The resolution goes beyond a no-fly zone. It includes language saying U.N. member states could "take all necessary measures" ... "by halting attacks by air, land and sea forces under the control of the Gadhafi regime."(CNN.com, Mar 17)

The new resolution not only calls for attacks on Libyan aircraft and air defenses, but authorizes the strafing and bombing of ground forces as well. The U.S. and French governments immediately announced that they were ready to go. Britain and Italy are aiding. In essence the former colonial powers have begun an armed attack on the Libyan government and its people, backing one side of a civil war.

No matter how one feels about Libya today and the role of the Gadhafi government; regardless of how one evaluates the Libyan opposition, a U.S.-led war or intervention in Libya is a disaster for the Libyan people, and for peace and progress around the world.



BAHRAIN EXPOSES THE LIE ABOUT "PREVENTING ATTACKS ON CIVILIANS"


The U.S. and its allies are repeating over and over the lie that they are trying to "prevent attacks on civilians" and are acting from humanitarian motives. But nobody should be fooled. Consider these “humanitarians” and how they react to Bahrain.

The U.S. Fifth Fleet is based in Bahrain, which is an absolute monarchy. Its people have been valiantly trying to change their government for weeks. They had some initial success. The king responded with deadly repression and later with hints at reform.

On March 14, however, hours after Secretary of Defense Gates visited Bahrain, the Bahraini government commenced a brutal crackdown, backed up by Saudi Arabian troops. Helicopters, tear gas, rubber bullets, and live ammunition were used, killing and injuring many people. Nearly all of Bahrain's security forces are foreign mercenaries.

Unlike the Libyan rebels, the Bahraini people have absolutely no arms. But there has been no talk of a no-fly zone over Bahrain, let alone attacks on the murderous Bahraini and Saudi armies.

NO BLOOD FOR OIL


This is because the real motivation for the U.S. and its allies in both Bahrain and Libya, and indeed the whole region, is to control the OIL! It is Washington’s main strategic interest and a primary financial interest for U.S. big business.

This is true even though the U.S. is not directly dependent on imported oil from Libya. Oil is a worldwide commodity, and any country which imports oil must deal with a world market, no matter from which individual country or countries they import the oil.

Of even more importance to the U.S. and Europeans is who controls the flow of oil. A military presence or a reliable puppet in Libya would give Washington --and to a lesser extent the European imperialists -- control of the oil spigot to Europe and also establish a military presence in North Africa from which to influence or prevent the development of the revolutions, especially in Egypt and Tunisia.


ARAB LEAGUE "VOTE" FRAUD


Not only a demonization campaign against the Libyan leader, but every form of fraud and propaganda is being used to push for this intervention, including a supposed "vote" by the Arab League supporting the latest U.N. resolution. Left unsaid is the fact that only 11 of the 22 members of the League even attended the meeting, which was held behind closed doors. Two of these 11 attending members, Syria and Algeria, made clear that they were completely opposed to military intervention in Libya.

Meanwhile the corporate media has ignored a resolution by the African Union, representing 53 countries, which adamantly rejected a no-fly zone or other intervention.


WHAT ABOUT GAZA?


The U. S. blocked any UN action, even a toothless resolution, during the massive Israeli bombardment of Gaza in 2008 and also during the Israeli bombing and attempted invasion of Lebanon in 2006, as well as the continued bombardment of Gaza as recently as this week!.
It is important that peace-loving and progressive people around the world develop a consistent approach opposing ALL U.S. intervention. This is the only way to avoid becoming just an echo of the U.S. State Department and Pentagon.

U.S., French, British, Italian hands off Libya!
NO to the U.S. supported attack on the people's movement of Bahrain!
U.S. Out of Arab and African Lands!

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=23785

 

[The Bread Guy]

The Airforce certainly has highly-paid Public Affairs Officers 

Seems it goes on in the British  Army also:  :nod:

To be fair, though, an organization (esp. gov't) should typically be putting the highest level of SME possible forward to comment on "how it's being done" stuff.  Also, I'm guessing PAO's are in the background doing a lot of work herding the journalists and helping sort out what's to be said, how and to whom.

 

[Journeyman]

Hence the "   " 

Perhaps I should have said "  ;D  "

 

[57Chevy]

ABC news  has reported that both Russia and Chine are calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Here's a good one

North Korea also Tuesday urged an immediate halt to the airstrikes. An unidentified Foreign Ministry spokesman said they were a "wanton violation" of Libya's sovereignty and a "hideous crime against humanity." The spokesman also accused the United States of wanting regime change in Libya and control of its natural resources. The comments were carried by the official Korean Central News Agency.

full article: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/8307/World/Region/China-and-North-Korea-call-for-immediate-ceasefire.aspx
shared in accordance with provisions of the copyright act

 

[The Bread Guy]

Hence the "   " 

Perhaps I should have said "  ;D  "

Man, I'm slipping today - and it's not even Friday.

 

[WingsofFury]

You're going going to be another Mark"look what I wrote, look what I wrote"Ottawa are you?  :

Nah...that's why I'm about to pay for advertising here on the site. 

Besides, I don't get paid to do any of my blog writing - I do it to ensure that there is a source of accurate information presented about the Air Force and eventually ALL the branches of our military in the public realm.

As the work that I get paid to do is in the print realm, it is impossible for me to link to those pieces at all and you'll never see me mention those publications here on the site.

And finally...don't worry, the number of references that I make to my blog will be minimal as I'm not going to be providing a daily breakdown of the contribution of the AF to the campaign. 

Cheers!

 

[a_majoor]

VDH weighs in:

http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262849/let-us-count-ways-victor-davis-hanson

Let Us Count the Ways . . .
March 23, 2011 11:03 A.M.
By Victor Davis Hanson 
Why are many conservatives against the Libyan war? Is it, as alleged, political opportunism — given their prior support for the 2001 and 2003 wars in Afghanistan and Iraq?

No. Most of us support wholeheartedly our troops now that we are in, but opposed the intervention for reasons that were clear before we attacked, and are even clearer now. Among them:

1) Timing: If the administration believed this monster should have left, it should have acted when the rebels had the momentum, and not issued threats and demands for Qaddafi to go without commensurate efforts to follow such saber-rattling up. Fairly or not, the administration established a goal that it now seems to be backing away from, as it talks of toning down the operation before it is even a week old. We boasted about storming Vienna, pulled up at its outskirts, froze, and are now bewildered that someone inside actually is fighting back.

2) Approval: To start a third war in the Middle East, the president should have first gone to Congress, especially since he and Vice President Biden have compiled an entire corpus of past speeches, some quite incendiary, equating presidential military intervention without congressional approval with illegality to the point of an impeachable offense (cf. Biden’s warning to Bush over a possible Iran strike). And why boast of U.N. and Arab League approval but not seek the sanction of the U.S. Congress?

3) Consistency: Why is meddling okay in Libya but was not okay in Iran when dissidents there were likewise making headway? Is there any rationale that determines our response to unrest in Egypt, Tunisia, Syria, Iran, the Gulf, or Libya? It seems we are making it up ad hoc, always in reaction to the perceived pulse of popular demonstrations — always a hit-and-miss, day-late-dollar-short proposition.

4) Aims and Objectives: Fact: We are now and then bombing Libyan ground targets in order to enhance the chances of rebel success in removing or killing Qaddafi. Fiction: We are not offering ground support but only establishing a no-fly zone, and have no desire to force by military means Qaddafi to leave. Questions: Is our aim, then, a reformed Qaddafi? A permanently revolutionary landscape? A partitioned, bisected nation? What is the model? Afghanistan? Mogadishu? The 12-year no-fly-zone in Iraq? A Mubarak-like forced exile? Who are the rebels? Westernized reformers? Muslim Brotherhood types? A mix? Who knows? Who cares?

5) Hypocrisy: This Libyan war is transpiring in a political climate where, for the last ten years, Obama and his supporters have lectured us that it is not only amoral and unwise but illegal for America to attack an oil-producing Muslim country that does not threaten our national security, a sin magnified if committed without congressional approval. It also follows similar demagoguery on Guantanamo, renditions, tribunals, preventative detentions, etc. — measures blasted as near-criminality under Bush but embraced or expanded under Obama. In this regard, the prior rhetoric of an Eric Holder or a Harold Koh bears no resemblance to their present action — a hypocrisy that follows from the president himself.

6) Means and Ends: The monthly federal budget deficit now exceeds the yearly deficit prior to when Bush went into Iraq — at a time when we are engaged in two other Middle East theaters, gas is soaring, inflation is back, and we have borrowed $5 trillion since this administration took office.

7) Leadership: This is a Potemkin coalition, far smaller than the one that fought in either Afghanistan or Iraq, notwithstanding loud proclamations to the contrary. We are not even done with the first week of bombing, and yet no one seems in charge: What body/country/alliance determines targets, issues communiques, or coordinates diplomacy? The U.K. goes after Qaddafi, and we plead “They did it, not us”? Again, fairly or not, the impression is that Obama dressed up preponderant American intervention under a multicultural fig leaf, earning the downsides of both. A loud multilateral effort could be wise diplomacy, but not if it translates into a desire to subordinate American options and profile to European and international players that are not commensurately shouldering the burden — and not if all this is cynically used to advance a welcomed new unexceptional American profile.

When we talk of “European leadership,” we mean the U.K. and France, not Germany, Italy, or most of the EU. When we talk of the “Arab League,” we mean essentially zero military assets. And when we talk of the “U.N.,” we mean zero blue-helmeted troops. So, like it or not, there is a level of understandable cynicism that suspects Obama’s new paradigm of multilateral, international action is simply the same-old, same-old, albeit without the advantages that accrue when America is unapologetic about its leadership role, weathers the criticism, and insists on the options and prerogatives that a superpower must demand in war by virtue of its power and sacrifice.

Add the above up, and I think Team Obama will find that even Democratic diehards and neocon sympathizers will soon bail, and very soon. Like it or not, to salvage this mess, the Obama administration is going to have to get rid of Qaddafi, do it very quickly, and argue that what follows is somewhat better.

 

[MarkOttawa]

You're going going to be another Mark"look what I wrote, look what I wrote"Ottawa are you?  :

If so, see here
http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/99510/post-1028677.html#msg1028677

I am not a "professional" on the web.  The CDFAI pays me nothing, nor has any other site where I have posted.  Including this one.  Where the vast majority of my posts, on a wide range of matters, have nothing to do with my own blogging--you could look it up.  I'm wondering whether it's all worth the trouble here; 'twould be no loss to me to quit spending a whole lot of time.

Mark
Ottawa

 

[Jed]

I'm happy to see your posts, MarkOttawa; and so are many others. Don't take that prior quip to heart. 

 

[old medic]

1 - Keep it on topic

2 - No personal shots. Debate or refute points, but we shouldn't see one line personal shots.

3 - This thread may be cleaned up.

 

[CougarKing]

It looks like Allied air strikes helped lift Loyalist forces' siege of the city:

link

Libya: Allied air strikes secure Misrata for rebels

Nearly 12 hours of allied air strikes have broken the Libyan regime's five-day bloody assault on the key rebel-held town of Misrata.

Residents said yesterday that the aerial bombardment destroyed tanks and artillery and sent many of Muammar Gaddafi's forces fleeing from Misrata, ending a siege and attack by the regime that cost nearly 100 lives from random shelling, snipers and bitter street fighting.

Mohammed Ali, an IT engineer at Misrata's main hospital, said that waves of air strikes began shortly after midnight on Wednesday.

"They bombed a lot of sites of the Gaddafi army. There is a former hospital where his tanks were based. All the tanks and the hospital were destroyed. A column of tanks was destroyed on the edge of the city," he said. "After that there was no shelling. We are very relieved. We are very grateful. We want to thank the world. The Gaddafi forces are scattered around. All that is left is the snipers and our fighters can take care of them."

Ali said people in Misrata wanted the coalition to keep up the air strikes until all Gaddafi's forces were driven away from the town to ensure that those who were able to escape with armoured vehicles and guns did not return.

A doctor in the town, who did not want to be named, said snipers were continuing to sow fear by targeting not only rebels but civilians.

"The sniper problem is a big one. A lot of people are still afraid to leave their homes," he said.

The apparent breaking of the siege will be a blow to the Libyan ruler's attempts to reassert control over the entire west of the country.

 

[57Chevy]

shared in accordance with provisions of the copyright act



LIBYA: OUR TOP GUN GIRL        (article excerpts)
A FEMALE Top Gun led the first daylight bombing raids over Libya yesterday.
She is the first British woman pilot to fly the awesome £125million Typhoon fighter jets in combat.

The war against Gaddafi has already cost £150million.
British taxpayers are spending £6m a day for planes to patrol the no-fly zone.
Typhoon jets cost £80,000 an hour.

The female flying ace, stationed in southern Italy, is one of 10 Typhoon pilots enforcing the no-fly zone over Libyan airspace.
The super planes travel at 1,550mph and can climb to 40,000ft in two minutes.
An RAF source said: “No one makes a big deal out of having a female pilot.
“She is a first-rate pilot and is here purely because of her abilities.” 
The female flying ace, stationed in southern Italy, is one of 10 Typhoon pilots enforcing the no-fly zone over Libyan airspace.
full article: http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/view/182756/Libya-Our-top-gun-girl/
                                                                    _________

Libya Conflict May Spur Sales of Battle-Proven Eurofighter Jet
The 1,500-mile-an-hour Typhoon, built by BAE Systems Plc, Finmeccanica SpA and European Aeronautic, Defence & Space Co., flew its first mission with Britain’s Royal Air Force on March 21.

It never hurts to have the ‘as used in combat’ stamp,” said Francis Tusa, London-based editor of the Defence Analysis newsletter. “It can only do you good.”
full article:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-03-23/libya-conflict-may-spur-sales-of-battle-proven-eurofighter-jet.html

 

[MarkOttawa]

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

 

[WingsofFury]

I am not a "professional" on the web.  The CDFAI pays me nothing, nor has any other site where I have posted.  Including this one.  Where the vast majority of my posts, on a wide range of matters, have nothing to do with my own blogging--you could look it up.  I'm wondering whether it's all worth the trouble here; 'twould be no loss to me to quit spending a whole lot of time.

Mark
Ottawa

As others have said, I have no problem with your posting of articles which reflect the position of learned experts on certain subject matter.

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.

I strive to produce factual information to counter all the erroneous information which finds itself onto the internet each and every day, just as I outlined earlier in this thread by displaying a CBC piece which contained numerous inaccuracies when describing the CF-18 Hornet.

I've attended the daily briefings via phone and even had the balls to ask a couple of questions which I hope will allow those responding to openly discuss the roles that the Hornets and their newly acquired systems bring to the table.  I'm going to continue to do that so that there is a chance that regular media will put more accurate and detailed information into their pieces.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program about Libya.