Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

[a_majoor]

More political falout in the US:

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/04/05/senate-defeats-rand-pauls-resolution-reasserting-congresss-war-powers-90-10/

Senate defeats Rand Paul’s resolution reasserting Congress’s war powers, 90-10
Share
posted at 7:02 pm on April 5, 2011 by Allahpundit
printer-friendly

This wasn’t a resolution to authorize operations in Libya but something far craftier — a resolution reaffirming Obama’s own words from 2007 that “the President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.” When Paul first introduced the idea last week, a flustered Harry Reid temporarily closed up shop to keep it from coming to the floor.

Turns out he needn’t have worried. The roll: 90-10 opposed. Disgraceful.

    The problem with Paul’s amendment, as seen by many members of the Democratic majority, was that it quoted then-Senator Barack Obama’s words from 2007 in what appeared to be an attempt to embarrass the Democratic president…

    Paul’s proposal was “too cute by half,” declared Democratic Senator Dianne Feinstein on Tuesday after she joined other senators in voting to table it, 90-10.

    Paul had trouble getting even his fellow Republicans to support his idea. Some said they didn’t approve of where he had chosen to offer his war powers amendment — on legislation to do with small businesses. “I think we need to address Libya, when (that’s) the focus,” said Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a Republican, after the vote.

That’s a convenient excuse but since Democrats weren’t about to let this pass, there’s no reason Republicans should have let a formal objection deter them from supporting it — if only to remind The One of what a hypocrite he is. All 10 no votes were GOP, but it’s an interesting mix: The tea party caucus of DeMint, Paul, and Mike Lee, the Maine RINOs Susan Collins and Olympia Snowe, freshmen Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey, and Jerry Moran, and veterans John Ensign and Jeff Sessions. I wonder if Collins and Snowe jumped aboard because they fear public support for the Libya mission crumbling eventually and want to be on the right side of the debate when it does, or if they’re simply worried about tea partiers in the primary and are trying to earn grassroots cred by siding with Rand Paul here. Hmmm.

McConnell, Kerry, Levin, Lieberman, and McCain are reportedly mulling a real authorization resolution for the Libya mission. If it’s 90-10 against Paul on this, I assume a genuine AUMF will have no trouble passing. Here’s Paul’s floor speech in support of his measure this afternoon. Exit quotation: “The new motto of Congress appears to be, ‘Tread on me. Please, tread on me.’”

 

[old medic]

Jordan sends jets to support no-fly zone over Libya
AMMAN | iloubnan.info - April 06, 2011
http://www.iloubnan.info/politics/actualite/id/59429/titre/Jordan-sends-jets-to-support-no-fly-zone-over-Libya

Jordanian Foreign Minister, Naser Jawdah, said on Wednesday that Jordan sent fighter aircraft to the European aerial base to support the No-fly zone imposed over Libya.

The Arab League had pushed earlier for a UN resolution to impose a no-fly zone over Libya following fatal attacks between the rebels in the eastern city of Benghazi and forces loyal to Libyan strongman Muammar Kadhafi.

First Swedish fighter jets arrive in Italy for NATO-led Libya operation
The Associated Press
03 April 2011

STOCKHOLM - Three Swedish fighter jets have landed in Italy as the Nordic country joins the NATO-led no-fly zone operation over Libya, an air force official said Saturday.

The JAS 39 Gripen planes touched down at the base in Sicily at around 1400 GMT (4 p.m. EDT), after leaving from their base in Blekinge in southern Sweden earlier Saturday, Air Force spokesman Rickard Wissman said.

The pilots had initially been instructed to fly to Sardinia, but was informed by NATO after take off that the destination had been moved to the Sigonella base on Sicily in Italy.

Five more jets will leave for the mission on Sunday, he said.

Wissman said the first three planes were "practically ready" to help enforce the no-fly zone as soon as they had landed, but are most likely to be put into operation in the middle of next week.

Swedish lawmakers on Friday approved a contribution of up to eight fighter jets and one transport plane to join the NATO-led mission.

The jets can't be used to bomb Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi's ground forces, but will be able to return fire if they are attacked.

 

[old medic]

As war rages in Libya, diplomatic wheels spin
6 April 2011
http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/africa/04/06/libya.war/index.html?hpt=T2

Tripoli, Libya (CNN) -- As rebel forces in Libya endure setbacks on the battlefield, a former U.S. lawmaker came to Tripoli armed with a plan to end the bloody war.

Ex-U.S. Rep. Curt Weldon, who met with Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi before within the last decade, paid a visit to the Libyan capital with a cease-fire plan and a clear message to the embattled ruler that he must step down.

The diplomatic overture occurred amid one bit of good news for the rebels Wednesday -- a tanker carrying crude oil is leaving the Libyan port of Tobruk in what is the first known opposition export of oil during the conflict.

At the same time, rebel fighters are trying to recover from a heavy artillery barrage by Gadhafi forces in the town of al-Brega, while residents in the western city of Misrata are spending their days in fear.

Weldon's trip comes amid other moves. A U.S. representative paid a visit to opposition leaders in Benghazi in the east. And Gadhafi sent a letter to the U.S. State Department, according to a senior administration official. There were no details on the contents.

In an interview with CNN affiliate WPIX-TV in New York, Weldon said he plans to meet with Gadhafi and Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khalid Khaim............

Nato concern at Libya use of human-shields in Misrata
6 April 2011
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12989878

Nato says forces loyal to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi are using human shields in the war-torn town of Misrata.

The coalition says Col Gaddafi's troops are using civilian vehicles and hiding their heavy armour in civilian areas.

Nato spokeswoman Oana Lungescu told the BBC: "Misrata remains our number one priority... but [Gaddafi's troops] are using human shields to protect themselves." ......

......'Gaddafi' letter to US

A Nato-led coalition mandated by the UN to protect civilians is enforcing a no-fly zone and attacking ground targets. It accuses Gaddafi forces of sheltering weapons in civilian areas.

In Washington the White House confirmed on Wednesday that it had received a letter reportedly from Col Gaddafi, but a spokesman declined to comment on the context of the letter.

Earlier, Libyan state TV said Col Gaddafi had sent a letter to US President Barack Obama following the US "withdrawal from the Crusader, colonialist and hostile alliance against Libya".

 

[old medic]

Canada adds personnel to NATO mission
By Jessica Murphy, Parliamentary Bureau
http://www.winnipegsun.com/news/canada/2011/04/06/17901951.html

OTTAWA - Canada has boosted the number of personnel involved in the NATO-led mission in Libya by nearly 200, the military said Wednesday.

There are now 570 Canadian army and navy personnel taking part in international efforts to crack down on Libyan despot Moammar Gaddafi.

That's compared to the 380 personnel originally posted when Canada joined the mission in March.

Brig.-Gen Richard Blanchette made the comments during a media briefing on the mission.

He also said Canadian CF-18 fighter jets had been on 14 flights since last week, targeting a number of ammunitions depots and military bunkers in Libya.

Canada also has navy frigate HMCS Charlottetown patrolling the waters north of Libya and CP-140 Aurora aircrafts flying the coastline.

The NATO mission is headed by Canadian Lt.-Gen Charles Bouchard.

 

[a_majoor]

Political fallout continues; a lawyer drafts Articles of Impeachment against the President. While I doubt it can get very far (the Senate has to vote for Impeachment if I remember correctly) it is indicative of how far off the rails this venture is pushing US politics. Long article(s), read it all on the link: http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0411/GOP_lawyer_circulates_Obama_impeachment_articles.html

 

[Container]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

I reviewed the thread and it doesn't appear, or I may have missed it, to be discussed at length the potential that we are actually assisting Libya in becoming an extremist state. I know the glorious leader suggested the links the rebels had to AQ at the beginning and it came across as a weird pitch but now some of the rebel fighters are admitting the links.

What is the end game here? Are we assisting our enemies in getting a foothold somewhere else? It would appear that some of the same people shooting at us in other countries are the people we are supporting in Libya.

IMHO if it wasnt for how much of a terrible guy Gaddafi is I would as soon stay out of it- of course it never comes down to what I want. If this somehow suits Canada's interests than go for it. But the stuff said by the "rebel" leaders suggests that whatever country comes out of this it won't be a friend.

This would appear, on surface context alone to me- uninformed though I be, to be an even less defined, and potentially lengthy and costly foray that will only have served to further dilute stability. Potentially we will have trained armed and assisted a group that will serve as recruiting grounds for the other guys......

It may sound cruel but these countries will only make themselves better when they are invested in it. Us getting involved removes their stake- this strikes me, at best, as a "good feelings" war- where we had to do SOMETHING. I m not a big fan of those- I dont like spending our resources without victory conditions. But hey- im just a dumb cop now.

 

[GAP]

This, combined with Thucydides post regarding Egypt in the thread Failing Islamic States, kinda leads me to believe things aren't going to work out like we think they will....

 

[Edward Campbell]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

I reviewed the thread and it doesn't appear, or I may have missed it, to be discussed at length the potential that we are actually assisting Libya in becoming an extremist state. I know the glorious leader suggested the links the rebels had to AQ at the beginning and it came across as a weird pitch but now some of the rebel fighters are admitting the links.

What is the end game here? Are we assisting our enemies in getting a foothold somewhere else? It would appear that some of the same people shooting at us in other countries are the people we are supporting in Libya.

IMHO if it wasnt for how much of a terrible guy Gaddafi is I would as soon stay out of it- of course it never comes down to what I want. If this somehow suits Canada's interests than go for it. But the stuff said by the "rebel" leaders suggests that whatever country comes out of this it won't be a friend.

This would appear, on surface context alone to me- uninformed though I be, to be an even less defined, and potentially lengthy and costly foray that will only have served to further dilute stability. Potentially we will have trained armed and assisted a group that will serve as recruiting grounds for the other guys......

It may sound cruel but these countries will only make themselves better when they are invested in it. Us getting involved removes their stake- this strikes me, at best, as a "good feelings" war- where we had to do SOMETHING. I m not a big fan of those- I dont like spending our resources without victory conditions. But hey- im just a dumb cop now.

This has been bothering me for a while and, a week or so back, I said:

Just about the last thing Libya (or Tunisia or even Egypt and Bahrain, which "matter" much more) needs, right now, is foreign, especially US, intervention.

It is not clear who may end up running Libya, nor is it clear, to me anyway, why it matters a whole lot. We, the big, US led Western "we" and the even bigger Sino-Indo-American led "we" do care about Egypt and Bahrain and a few other places that are seething with discontent - Pakistan, too, maybe? - but not about Libya.

These populist movements may well bring on fundamentalist Islamist government - that was the result of the last really "free and fair" elections (1991) in relatively sophisticated Algeria. Libya has, for over 60 years, been behind its North African neighbours in most socio-economic measures; it depends upon Egypt and others for a steady supply of educated professional and technical people to "operate" the country. It is quite possible that a new military junta of some sort will take over and it may decide to reform and modernize the country - or it may decide that further decades of political repression and socio-economic stagnation are in Libya's best interests.

In any event, it is of little concern to us ... whoever "us" is.

 

[Container]

Thanks E.R. Sorry I missed it.

I think in a manner alot of extremists have had their "free parking" cards revoked in more than a few countries. In places like Afghan, being an extremist freedom fighter carries a potential hot lead sentence. While they are still there, their ability to operate as open and freely as they used to is more limited. Greater scrutiny I suppose at the least. Not like in their prime where in Afghan they were invited by the government and almost enjoyed "status".

If I apply my own experience with drug dealers, and think from their point of view Libya would be attractive- some level of infratructure, something to sell, and an upcoming power vacuum that could legitimize their presence or allow them to operate with some freedom. Wink wink nudge nudge "they aren't here" type of thing.

That isn't to suggest that AQ is a cohesive unit with a shadowy council of leaders. But at the individual level its the natural reaction to pressure. It could very well be that for them that Libya is the path of least resistance and a good place to reorganize from. I imagine its more complicated than that but I have observed similar on a small scale.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Maybe because if (when?) things go horribly wrong no Americans, Brits or French senior officers will have to be pilloried ...  :-\

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is one view from Washington:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/libya-stalemate-emerging-us-general-says/article1975481/

Libya stalemate emerging, U.S. general says

PHIL STEWART
WASHINGTON— Reuters

Published Thursday, Apr. 07, 2011

A stalemate appears to be emerging in Libya between rebels and forces loyal to Colonel Moammar Gaddafi but the United States should not make any decision to arm the rebels without knowing more about them, a top U.S. general said on Thursday.

The comments at a Senate hearing by General Carter Ham, who led the coalition air campaign before Washington handed over command to NATO, is likely to stoke debate in the United States about the next steps in Libya.

U.S. President Barack Obama has ruled out sending American ground forces to the North African oil-exporting nation and top administration officials have stressed the limits of American involvement in what could become a protracted civil war.

Mr. Obama has called for Col. Gadhafi to leave but has insisted the United States will not use military force to oust him.

Senator John McCain, a Republican who is pushing for greater U.S. involvement, grilled Gen. Ham about the risks of Col. Gadhafi staying in power.

Asked by Mr. McCain whether he believed the situation could be described as a stalemate or an emerging stalemate, Gen. Ham said: “I would agree with that at present on the ground.”

Gen. Ham, head of the U.S. military’s Africa Command, later acknowledged that the likelihood of a stalemate was higher now than before the United States passed control of the air campaign to NATO on March 31.

“So right now we are facing the prospect of a stalemate, which then means Gadhafi remains in power,” Mr. McCain said. “Which then means that we will then have a very, very serious situation with Mr. Gadhafi in the future if he remains in power, particularly given his past record.”

The debate underscored tensions within Washington about how to best influence events in Libya, where poorly trained rebels are outgunned by Col. Gadhafi’s loyalist forces despite a coalition air campaign.

Asked by Senator Lindsey Graham how the war would end, Gen. Ham said: “I think it does not end militarily.”

He said there was a low likelihood that rebels would be able to fight their way to Tripoli and oust Col. Gadhafi by force.

“That’s a very honest answer. I would assess (the chance) as almost impossible,” replied Mr. Graham, a Republican.

But Washington has also been reluctant to firmly side with the rebels, citing concerns that extremists might be among their ranks. A U.S. commander recently said that intelligence detected “flickers” of a possible al-Qaeda presence among the rebels, and an Algerian official said al-Qaeda had acquired some arms in Libya.

Gen. Ham renewed that cautious line on Thursday.

“We would need, I think, necessarily to be careful about providing lethal means to a group unless we are assured that those U.S.-provided weapons would not fall into the hands of extremist organizations,” Gen. Ham said.

He cited the stated intent of al-Qaeda’s North Africa arm, al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), to aid the opposition.

“It has been very difficult to ascertain whether that intent to support the opposition with AQIM personnel has actually materialized in anything on the ground,” Gen. Ham said. “We’re watching that for indications of that very clearly.”

Gen. Ham defended the work of NATO in the face of criticism by the head of Libya’s rebels, who condemned the alliance this week for its slow chain of command in ordering air strikes to protect civilians.

A NATO air strike on Thursday killed at least five rebels near the Libyan port of Brega. It was the second time in less than a week that rebels had blamed NATO for bombing their comrades by mistake.

So the French, mainly, led the US and NATO on a fool’s errand which may, at best, end up in a stalemate or, at worst, as an al Qaeda victory, with, even worse, Gadhafi still around. Anyone now want to know why there is a Canadian in charge? Who will get blamed: the US? France?

 

[Journeyman]

So the French, mainly, led the US and NATO on a fool’s errand .....

Clearly it's been a no-win, tragic farce from the get-go.

France, for anyone who's followed current events, has been at war with Libya since 1978 (the 1978-'88 decade, with Chad as allies, was particularly ugly). Sure, they're buying Libyan oil, but the conflict is far from over in the halls of power within Paris.

But now Sarkozy needs a domestic victory; NATO (for credibility sake) cannot lose; yet intervention, in whatever form, cannot -- or cannot be seen to -- aid AQIM or other terrorist organizations.

As said earlier.....Egypt and Bahrain, yes....Libya, who cares. Shame it's too late.

 

[jollyjacktar]

Personally I think we should not be involved.  Let the two sides duke it out, best man wins.  We don't need and should not get sucked further into the vortex of shit this situation seems to be heading towards.  And I am not happy with the thoughts of helping a load of Islamofacists getting in power somewhere.

 

[Dissident]

Personally I think we should not be involved.  Let the two sides duke it out, best man wins.  We don't need and should not get sucked further into the vortex of crap this situation seems to be heading towards.  And I am not happy with the thoughts of helping a load of Islamofacists getting in power somewhere.

Indeed. I would have thought we would have learnt that lesson with the Taliban by now.

 

[midget-boyd91]

Didn't see these posted on here...
RAW Footage of CF-18s hitting Libyan SCUD depots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nm7gfSKHSwo&feature=related

and Ammo Depots
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FDGxXVtN66k

 

[CanadaPhil]

@Uncle...

Yeah, there are a couple on Liveleak also.

Does anyone find it curious that our F18's were actively involved in bombing targets in and around Misrata for about 5 solid days,  but that our activity (at least bombing raids I mean) seem to have virtually ceased as of last Friday, April 1st.

This was the same day of the NATO strike that accidently killed some civilans near Brega due to secondary explosions. I believe an RAF tornado was involved in that.

I for one hope that we have simply returned to running combat air patrol, surveillance and re-supply only. 

If France and the UK want to usurp Russia and Turkey in Libya, let them take care of this mess.

 

[57Chevy]

provided in accordance with provisions of the Copyright Act


NATO: No Military Solution in Libya
http://news.antiwar.com/2011/04/08/nato-no-military-solution-in-libya/
Analysts See Partition as Inevitable
by Jason Ditz, April 08, 2011

The NATO war in Libya is continuing apace with no end in sight. Despite this, NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen reiterated today that there “is no military solution” in the nation.

Rasmussen insisted that a “political solution” was needed instead, which is noteworthy primarily because NATO appears to be making absolutely no effort toward such a solution, but is rather content to keep dropping bombs.

The comments are virtually identical to those made last week, and analysts are saying that they once again point to a civil war which has rapidly devolved into a stalemate. It seems, many believe, that partition is virtually inevitable, and what remains to be seen is where the border will be drawn.

And while a stalemate might well mean a return to relative calm on both sides of the country, lingering hostility is likely to be a justification for the continuation of the NATO no-fly zone and, by extension, the war, for months or even years to come.

 

[DCRabbit]

@Uncle...

Yeah, there are a couple on Liveleak also.

Does anyone find it curious that our F18's were actively involved in bombing targets in and around Misrata for about 5 solid days,  but that our activity (at least bombing raids I mean) seem to have virtually ceased as of last Friday, April 1st.

This was the same day of the NATO strike that accidently killed some civilans near Brega due to secondary explosions. I believe an RAF tornado was involved in that.

I for one hope that we have simply returned to running combat air patrol, surveillance and re-supply only.

If France and the UK want to usurp Russia and Turkey in Libya, let them take care of this mess.

My bro in law just went over there to head up NATO's PR effort. I do not envy him his job.

 

[old medic]

Iceland air support sent to Libya, Canada rearranges cover

Ice News
4 April 2011
http://www.icenews.is/index.php/2011/04/04/iceland-air-support-sent-to-libya-canada-rearranges-cover/

Three fighter jets landed at Iceland’s Keflavik airport and NATO military base yesterday evening and three more are expected later today. The air cover for Iceland had to be swiftly re-arranged because the Canadian Forces Air Command decided to send the team originally earmarked for Iceland on a mission to Libya.

Canada has just taken over responsibility for Icelandic airspace under the NATO arrangement which sees allied nations take turns to patrol the air above Iceland. Air forces often also take the opportunity to use Iceland for exercises, as the NATO member country has the relevant equipment and ground crews despite not having a military of its own.

Before the three F-18 fighters arrived yesterday, Canada had already sent personnel, tools and equipment to Iceland. Later today one more F-18 will arrive, along with a P-3 aircraft used for aerial re-fuelling.

Some 150 personnel accompany the planes and will be staying at the Keflavik base over the coming weeks. As well as patrolling, the Canadians also plan to conduct exercises and landing practice at Keflavik, Akureyri and Egilsstadir.

The Icelandic Coastguard recently took over from the Icelandic Defence Agency, which held ultimate responsibility for Icelandic airspace, RUV reports.

The coastguard reports that the current Canadian mission had to be swiftly reorganised when it came to light the originally scheduled aircraft and crew would be sent on the NATO no-fly zone enforcement mission to Libya.

 

[old medic]

Does anyone find it curious that our F18's were actively involved in bombing targets in and around Misrata for about 5 solid days,  but that our activity (at least bombing raids I mean) seem to have virtually ceased as of last Friday, April 1st.

You should google up the words "media releases, dnd and election" or even search them here.


http://www.acus.org/natosource/canada-adds-personnel-nato-mission

07 April 2011

Canada has boosted the number of personnel involved in the NATO-led mission in Libya by nearly 200, the military said Wednesday. ...

Brig.-Gen Richard Blanchette made the comments during a media briefing on the mission.

He also said Canadian CF-18 fighter jets had been on 14 flights since last week, targeting a number of ammunitions depots and military bunkers in Libya.

Yellow reference to briefing on 6 April 2011

 

[old medic]

NATO destroys 17 Libyan tanks: official
Reuters
9 April 2011
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/NATO+destroys+Libyan+tanks+official/4589502/story.html

BRUSSELS — NATO forces destroyed 17 tanks belonging to Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi’s forces on Friday and early Saturday, a NATO official said on Saturday.

NATO aircraft hit 15 tanks near the western city of Misrata, where Gaddafi’s forces are attacking rebels, and two south of Brega in the east of the country, he said. "Friday’s operations could prove to have had the highest tempo (since NATO took command of military operations in Libya)," the official said.

The official also said NATO aircraft intercepted a MIG 23 aircraft near Benghazi on Saturday, flown by a rebel pilot, and advised him to land. "We don’t know the identity of the pilot but given that he took off from Benghazi, we would presume it was an opposition pilot," he said