Libya Update Thread - 48 hours for Libyan Freedom ??

[T_J]

Vice Admiral Bill Gortney reveals that A-10 and AC-130s flew missions over Libya during the weekend.

http://www.pentagonchannel.mil/pcindex. ... yssey+Dawn" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The MoD has announced that last night RAF Marham based Tornado GR4s, using Storm Shadow, targeted munition bunkers in Sabha, Central Libya.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne ... Sabha.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

The Ministry of Defence confirmed that Tornado GR4 jets flew from RAF Marham in Norfolk to destroy bunkers in the central Libya town.

The planes used Storm Shadow missiles to blow up the installations which were thought to contain ammunition being used to attack the rebel held city of Misurata.

MOD spokesman Major General John Lorimer said: ”Initial reports suggest that the bunkers have been destroyed and that the Libyan government has been denied ammunition it uses to threaten civilians in the north of the country.”

TJ

[SteveS]

The rebels are still fighting I don't see any sign of us bombing them, if we are completely neutral in this then shouldn't we also be stopping the rebels attacking Gaddafi's forces aswell, or can we pick and choice?
rainbow

As far as I'm aware, we're only enforcing a no fly zone to stop the targetting of civilians. If the rebels are attacking military targets from the air, which I don't think they are (stand to be corrected there), then so be it, we are there to protect the civilian population of Libya, not Gaddafi's military. How do you distinguish between the rebels and civilians though, given that most dress like civilians, drive around in civilian vehicles etc. If the defected rebel tanks/aircraft started bombing civilian areas willy-nilly, then I dare say we would get involved to stop them.

Our involvement only came around when stories of the Libyan Air Force attacking civilians came about. I can't explain why we are there instead of Zimbabwe for example and I don't think any of us know enough about the internal workings of these countries on your list to make an informed judgement. Libya may be ranked 7th best in Africa for human rights, but they're still bombing their own population.

Steve

[beefsteak]

If we are here to protect human rights here is a list complied by the US state department of the top 10 worst offenders:

rainbow

That bit should answer your question !!

If it were a United Nations list then it would have a bit of credance where I'm concerened.

And the reason we're not "Policing" the countries on that list ?? Obvious really , they've got nothing we want !!!!

[jon93]

Gripens could be going to libya sweden want to contribute eight fighters, am I right in thinking this would be the gripens operational debut as well.

[RichC]

so again please explain to me why we are there when there are far worse leaderships?

Civilian populace of most of the coastal area of Libya "asked" the UN to conduct this operation. If the people inside the country want it, what is the problem?

[turbosix]

If we are here to protect human rights here is a list complied by the US state department of the top 10 worst offenders:

1.North Korea
2.Myanmar
3.Iran
4.Syria
5.Zimbabwe
6.Cuba
7.Belarus
8.Uzbekistan
9.Eritrea
10.Sudan

Report doesn't list were Libya is ranked in the world but it says there are 53 countries in AFRICA and Libya is ranked as the 7th best for human rights scoring higher than Egypt, so again please explain to me why we are there when there are far worse leaderships?

You may not like my views but think we should look at the worst offenders before we start here.

The rebels are still fighting I don't see any sign of us bombing them, if we are completely neutral in this then shouldn't we also be stopping the rebels attacking Gaddafi's forces aswell, or can we pick and choice?
rainbow

I wonder if that list was compiled before or after Gaddafi threatened to go to Banghazi slaughtering the people (approx 1.5 million) from room to room and from house to house.

[Rainbow 6]

Don't think it matters when the list was done, if those governments are worse than this one then should they have been dealt with before this one?

We have ignored requests for help before from other countries what makes this so different, the only thing that us different is as been said they have something we want. Gulf war 1 for examplewe sat back and let that happen and countless other times over the last 20 years.

We are getting involved in a civil war and we are taking sides, which ever way you look at it, and we need ti be careful that we don't get dragged into something that we really don't want.

[beefsteak]

Rainbow 6 wrote:
so again please explain to me why we are there when there are far worse leaderships?



I'll state it again , anywhere with far worse leaderships that we aren't already helping have nothing we want..............Simples!!

Afganistan.......all sorts of chemical and oil deposits
Iraq ..............Oil
Libya.............Again oil.

Cal me cynical if you like but it's a bit more than a coincidence don't you think??

[hertsman]

Rainbow 6 wrote:

"I am no lover of Gaddafi but he is a leader of a country, and we dont like him so lets go and over throw him. There are a lot of other leaders around the world who treat there people badly, and do far worse to them and we dont do anything to them. What is the difference here? We dont agree with him so lets go and remove him that makes us no better than bin Laden you dont agree with me and you dont have my values therefore you must die."


It's called 'realpolitik' which refers to politics or diplomacy based primarily on power and on practical and material factors and considerations. In other words we don't like Gaddafi, we do like his oil, we are able to attack him without too much risk of direct reprisals, and it's a practical proposition.

While I fully and wholeheartedly support our forces in action, I share many of Rainbow 6's concerns. Like lots of people in the UK, I am very uneasy about being dragged into a long-term conflict where we will eventually become unwanted by all sides. The humanitarian case for intervention was very strong but I greatly fear 'mission creep', as well as a very uncertain outcome. The worst option is that Gaddafi survives, which does not look unlikely at the moment. That will lead to a very uneasy presence on the southern shores of the Mediterranean for years to come, and certainly not the hoped for outcome of the coalition. So do they change their mission, via the UN? On what grounds? At what point do we say enough is enough and abandon the rebels to their fate, if that's what we do? It could all get very messy, and I do not see a clean way out right now. I suspect we are doing the easy bit at the moment. The hard yards are to come.

hertsman

[SteveS]

Hertsman, Jem and rainbow6,

I agree with Hertsman about 'mission creep', if things change and it seems the coalition's plans are diverting away from the basis of the UN Resolution, then we will have a problem.

As it stands we are enforcing a no fly-zone to prevent Gaddafi from attacking the population of Libya and I for one am proud of the fact that the RAF is part of that.

The one thing we do not need and probably could not sustain, is to be further involved in the conflict and 'taking sides' as such.

I'll allow this side-line to go on a little longer, then we should probably get back on topic, before the "almighty" Flaps descends and spanks us.

Steve

[davedubya]

Hertsman, Jem and rainbow6,

I agree with Hertsman about 'mission creep', if things change and it seems the coalition's plans are diverting away from the basis of the UN Resolution, then we will have a problem.

As it stands we are enforcing a no fly-zone to prevent Gaddafi from attacking the population of Libya and I for one am proud of the fact that the RAF is part of that.

Indeed.

And let's not forget the RAF's objective - "...to ensure the security and defence of the United Kingdom and overseas territories, including against terrorism; to support the Government’s foreign policy objectives particularly in promoting international peace and security."

This current opertation clearly falls well within that mandate and the RAF are serving it well.

[T_J]

US Navy P-3C, USAF A-10 and USS Barry Engage Libyan Vessels

http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=59406" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

From Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn Public Affairs

USS MOUNT WHITNEY, At Sea (NNS) -- A U.S. Navy P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft and guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG-52), engaged Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria and two smaller crafts March 28.

The vessels were engaged after confirmed reports that Vittoria and accompanying crafts were firing indiscriminately at merchant vessels in the port of Misrata, Libya.

The P-3C fired at Vittoria with AGM-65F Maverick missiles, rendering the 12-meter patrol vessel ineffective and forcing it to be beached after multiple explosions were observed in the vicinity of the port.

Two smaller Libyan crafts were fired upon by the A-10 using its 30mm GAU-8/ Avenger cannon, destroying one and forcing the other to be abandoned.

TJ

[T_J]

Good coverage on the conflict on the following webpage.

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/20 ... explained/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/21 ... ned-day-2/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/22 ... ned-day-3/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/23 ... ned-day-4/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/24 ... ned-day-5/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/25 ... ned-day-6/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/26 ... ned-day-7/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://cencio4.wordpress.com/2011/03/27 ... ned-day-8/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

TJ

[jon93]

No typhoon display or tornado GR4 due to commitments in Libya.

[Craig]

Civilian populace of most of the coastal area of Libya "asked" the UN to conduct this operation. If the people inside the country want it, what is the problem?

Even watching pictures from the Biased Brainwashing Corporation show that Gadaffi has supporters too. If they asked for us to bomb the rebels, or to jump off a cliff so to put it, then should we? Just because an unsubstantiated number of people ask for something does it mean they should get their own way? In a democracy it is majority rule, Libya is not a democracy so we have sided with the anti goverment forces and civilians, but on democratic principles is it proven that the majority wanted us to act? I doubt it.

Interesting that we look at the anti goverement protesters as freedom fighters in the middle east but the ones back home the other day were labelled anarchists. How would we feel say 50 years from now if we had an uprising of anarchists on our streets demanding more dole money who were brandishing guns so the goverment/police fought back aggressively for the control of the streets and the new world superpower of China decided we were infringing the anarchists human rights and bombed the Rubber dog muck out of us?

As it stands we are enforcing a no fly-zone to prevent Gaddafi from attacking the population of Libya and I for one am proud of the fact that the RAF is part of that.

The one thing we do not need and probably could not sustain, is to be further involved in the conflict and 'taking sides' as such.

If you seriously believe that we are acting within the UN mandate still and not taking sides already then I am surprised. The mission creep is prevelant already. Before we get done by the media and fall for the humanitarian interevention card, which rainbow has already correctly suggested is not a universal application of morals, then we need to think about where this goes from here. If Gadaffi stops the fighting and lays down his weapons would we turn a blind eye to the rebels murdering him and his military? What if the rebels killed civilian supporters of Gadaffi, would we ignore that too? This of course would be the Wests preferred outcome, being seen as contradictory is much better than having the rebels lose and having to shake hands with Gadaffi and make friends again to get the oil flowing again after backing the wrong horse in the early days. Don't forget Bush labelled him a valued ally in the war on terror and lifted all sanctions to do trade deals, our goverment released al megahri (sp?) for similar political gain. Feeling embarrassed now and need rid of him thinking it will gain some brownie points in the Arab world? Well it won't, because we will happily turn a blind eye to the actions of Saudi, Yemen and Bahrain because of vested military interests. What would be realy sickening is if the UN have the cheek to skip those countries and take military action in Syria next if the situation intensifies there with the domino revolutions...

I fully agree with the people that are showing real concern with what the end game is here and the apparent lack of exit strategy. I read somewhere the other day that "the object of war is achieving political goals, not military victory". Well what is our political gain in getting involved in Libya? I think people need to weigh that up against the moral high ground saving civilians point of view carefully before they support action like this.

Indeed.

And let's not forget the RAF's objective - "...to ensure the security and defence of the United Kingdom and overseas territories, including against terrorism; to support the Government’s foreign policy objectives particularly in promoting international peace and security."

This current opertation clearly falls well within that mandate and the RAF are serving it well.

Is ensuring the security and defence of the UK really skinting ourselves with another draining middle east American imperialism conflict? Was Gadaffi staying in power a threat to INTERNATIONAL peace and security? And probably most importantly, do we think that action taken in Libya, whilst ignoring, the countries I mentioned above, cause the muslim world to feel like its suppression by and struggle against the West grows and actually lead to more terrorism or less in the long run?

[SteveS]

Craig, you argue your point well and you make a good point about an exit strategy, because I too cannot see a sensible way out of this. I cannot foresee a result that does not end in Gaddafi being killed or the rebels being killed and you're also right in suggesting that it would now be impossible for the West to allow Gaddafi to continue to rule, should that be the outcome. Indeed, I believe the UK and the US want him put on trial for war crimes, whilst the Italians want him exiled.

However, regards whether the coalition's actions can be considered 'taking sides', I would need to see for myself exactly what they are targetting in Libya. If it is Gaddafi's airbases and armour we are targetting then this would fall within the UN mandate of an arms embargo.

The problem is that unless we are there for ourselves, all coverage we see will have a slant, whether purposely or sub-consciously.

Steve

[Hurn]

US President Barack Obama has said he does not rule out arming the rebels seeking to overthrow Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

Well, well, well http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12902450

I've been waiting to hear something like this tbh.

It's been clear from the outset the West wants Gadaffi OUT and I've felt since the start that it would take more than just a no fly zone and a few rebels to oust him.

What a complete crock of this all is, but frankly I'm not in the least surprised how it's panning out.

[PR9]

Arming rebels?

This has shades of the US 'involvement' in the USSR/Afghan conflict which came back to bite them in bum big time.

[SteveS]

Yeah, I'm fairly sure arming the rebels wouldn't be in keeping with the UN...........

[quid21]

Surprise surprise, when the coalition stop bombing the rebels retreat.

One of Colonel Gortneys recent press conferences a member of the journalists asked him a very good question about whether there are any targets the coalition are not targetting that they would target in an all out conflict.

Surprise surprise, the Colonel said that he cannot answer that.

All we're doing is lining ourselves up for more terrorism in the long run.