11th hour intervention in Libya

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

"No Fly Zone" is a euphemism for "Use our jets to smack targets of our choosing".

Because a "No Fly Zone" must be enforced first be crushing all existing 'oppressor' AA bases, radar sites, airfields, refuelling depots, etc etc.

If a few (dozen) bombs drop on tanks, artillery, munitions depots - who's going to notice?

For that matter, any armored vehicle can be identified as having 'anti-air' capability.

Any soldier in uniform might have a Stinger or ex-Soviet equipment.

See how this works?

[don]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The no-fly zone in Iraq allowed the Kurds and the "Marsh Arabs" of the south to exercise semi-autonomy from Baghdad, a first step in breaking the strong nationalist feelings of most Iraqis. A failed (oil) state is a useful state, possibly the new paradigm replacing the traditional strongman.

[jk]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Yes, Tomahawk missiles are flying now, so the idea this is simply a "no-fly zone" is probably already outdated. Makes it sound so much less serious though don't you think?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ry?id=13174246

part of gates' concern about a no-fly zone was that the first step is to destroy air-defense systems, which means attacking ground targets.

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The Arab league is already protesting that the UN attacks are exceeding what they envisioned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110320/wl_nm/us_libya

So much for that moral authority. The problem with these things is that war is not so tidy and easy to control as some would like to think. And I think its not fair to the airmen to expect them to fight this kind of war.

[GRG55]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

...The U.S. is a violent nation at home...

Doesn't appear to be an uncommon outcome for nations born from revolution...

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The Arab league is already protesting that the UN attacks are exceeding what they envisioned.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110320/wl_nm/us_libya

So much for that moral authority. The problem with these things is that war is not so tidy and easy to control as some would like to think. And I think its not fair to the airmen to expect them to fight this kind of war.

As I noted above: "No Fly Zone" is Newspeak for "we attack Qaddafi":

As European and U.S. forces unleashed warplanes and cruise missiles against Muammar Gaddafi's air defenses and armor, the Libyan leader said the air strikes amounted to terrorism and vowed to fight to the death.

While his eastern forces fled from the outskirts of Benghazi in the face of the allied air attacks, Gaddafi sent tanks into Misrata, the last rebel city in western Libya. Among the densely packed houses they were less vulnerable to attack from the air without the risk of killing innocent civilians.

Sixty-four people were killed in the Western bombardment overnight, a Libyan government health official said, but it was impossible to verify the report as government minders refused to take reporters in Tripoli to the sites of the bombings.

...

Outside the eastern city, the advance by Gaddafi's troops was stopped in its tracks with smoldering, shattered tanks and troop carriers littering the main road. The charred bodies of at least 14 government soldiers lay scattered in the desert.

Apparently tanks and troops carriers are considered part of 'flight' operations.

[ASH]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

As I noted above: "No Fly Zone" is Newspeak for "we attack Qaddafi":

Apparently tanks and troops carriers are considered part of 'flight' operations.

No -- attacks on ground forces are covered in the part of the UN Resolution which authorizes "all necessary measures [to protect areas under attack]":

4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

The broad phrasing of this clause was much remarked upon in the MSM at the time the resolution passed.

Troop formations attacking Benghazi and other rebel towns are fair game under the resolution. If you consider the distinction between 'occupation' and 'raid', the resolution may actually permit ground operations.

[ASH]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

The no-fly zone in Iraq allowed the Kurds and the "Marsh Arabs" of the south to exercise semi-autonomy from Baghdad, a first step in breaking the strong nationalist feelings of most Iraqis. A failed (oil) state is a useful state, possibly the new paradigm replacing the traditional strongman.

That is an unusual take on the position of the Iraqi Kurds in Saddam's Iraq. Also, I don't think that conditions in a 'failed state' are good for developing and extracting resources.

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

No -- attacks on ground forces are covered in the part of the UN Resolution which authorizes "all necessary measures [to protect areas under attack]":

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing.

As I noted above - anything and everything can be considered a 'threat' to enforcement of a no-fly zone. Even though supposedly no US warplane has been shot down by another nation's aircraft for decades, and the number of planes downed by actual AA fire numbers in the 2 digits despite decades of bombing.

[ASH]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I'm not sure where we're disagreeing.

As I noted above - anything and everything can be considered a 'threat' to enforcement of a no-fly zone. Even though supposedly no US warplane has been shot down by another nation's aircraft for decades, and the number of planes downed by actual AA fire numbers in the 2 digits despite decades of bombing.

Only that under the UN resolution, such actions don't have to have anything to do with the no-fly zone. I just wanted to point out that there is language in the resolution which covers attacks on ground forces, where the key issue is whether the ground forces are attacking civilian areas, rather than posing a danger to enforcement of the no-fly zone.

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

Only that under the UN resolution, such actions don't have to have anything to do with the no-fly zone. I just wanted to point out that there is language in the resolution which covers attacks on ground forces, where the key issue is whether the ground forces are attacking civilian areas, rather than posing a danger to enforcement of the no-fly zone.

I'm still unclear why this matters.

Whether it is covered by the UN or not - the UN is not in any position to supervise what American and French planes do. There are no UN observers over Libya, or on the ground. Nor, I am sure, was the UN allowed supervisory targeting approval over the 112 or whatever Tomahawks launched.

I've never yet seen even an attempt at an investigation to see if 'No Fly Zone' ordinances in Iraq or in Yugoslavia were in fact adhering strictly to the 'law'.

And you've not responded to my point: anything with a machine gun can be construed as an 'No Fly Zone' enforcement threat and thus can be attacked - i.e. all armored vehicles. Any soldier in uniform can have a shoulder launched missile and thus can be attacked.

The UN language may make the legal fiction somewhat stronger, but I personally have never had any doubt what would happen once a 'No Fly Zone' green light was given.

Let's be clear - the UN, or more specifically French and American air forces - are intervening in a domestic struggle. When one side has clear technological superiority in the form of aircraft and military machinery, and a resolution is passed against aircraft and military machinery, the resolution is targeted at only one side.

On the other hand, if an arms embargo were imposed, the effective target would be the 'other' side.

[c1ue]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

An interesting speculation: that the 'rebellion' was significantly motivated by other tribes angry over Qaddafi importing 1 million black Africans into Libya.

That's one way to dilute out the opposition.

http://dasschwerstegewicht.blogspot....you-about.html

EDIT: To compare, the population of Libya is 6.5 million. If indeed 1 million sub-Saharan Africans were brought in by Qaddafi, this is a major demographic shift.

[ASH]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

I'm still unclear why this matters.

It is a trivial point, but you framed your post in terms of the no-fly zone being generalized to cover anything found needful. I am pointing out that the UN resolution covering intervention in Libya was so broadly worded that attacks on Gaddafi's troops don't even require a justification tied to enforcement of the no-fly zone. The outcome is the same.

Whether it is covered by the UN or not - the UN is not in any position to supervise what American and French planes do. There are no UN observers over Libya, or on the ground. Nor, I am sure, was the UN allowed supervisory targeting approval over the 112 or whatever Tomahawks launched.

I've never yet seen even an attempt at an investigation to see if 'No Fly Zone' ordinances in Iraq or in Yugoslavia were in fact adhering strictly to the 'law'.

I agree.

And you've not responded to my point: anything with a machine gun can be construed as an 'No Fly Zone' enforcement threat and thus can be attacked - i.e. all armored vehicles. Any soldier in uniform can have a shoulder launched missile and thus can be attacked.

To be clear -- I agree with your statement about how a no-fly zone can be stretched, but I want to point out that it is not necessary to stretch the no-fly zone "justification" when the same types of actions can directly be justified under other provisions of the same UN resolution.

The reason I posted was that I wasn't sure everyone was aware of what was actually in the UN resolution. Some people read a headline about a no-fly zone and were subsequently surprised to learn that the French attacked Libyan vehicles on the road outside Benghazi (or possibly 'feigned' surprise, in view of the same considerations you mention).

[flintlock]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

It would not surprise me if there were some of "our" people on the ground in Libya right now.

[BigBagel]

Re: 11th hour intervention in Libya

http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/warpower.asp

Instead of dissecting the UN resolution could someone explain to me how President Obama's actions are legal? Above is a link to the wording of the War Powers Resolution. It's about a one minute read.
Can anyone read it and still tell me that what we're doing is legal?
Do you think they bypassed debate because the great unwashed are getting a little tired of war. Polls indicate that up to 3/4's of the American people are not on board with this.
They've fired over a hundred cruise missiles at 600,000$ a pop. That's over 60,000,000$ in just cruise missiles.