The betrayal of Misrata...
Libyan rebels pay a heavy price for resisting Gaddafi in Misrata
With 1,000 dead and a further 3,000 injured, the two-month-old war has taken its toll on the people of the city
So much for the wording from UNSC Resolution 1973 in this regard:
Quote:
Protection of civilians
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, ...
Then this:
Drones can be used by Nato forces in Libya, says Obama
First comment. Thought it was obvious that UAVs were needed in Libya all along.
Second, this needs a specific Presidential authorisation?
Thirdly, the Brits have hit 58 targets in three weeks around Misrata being around two and a half per day. That's pretty pathetic. Who else has done what?
As the killed photojournalist Tim Hetherington posted on Twitter:
"In besieged Libyan city of Misrata. Indiscriminate shelling by Gaddafi forces. No sign of Nato."
Sneak attacks sometimes succeed, some times do not...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
JMA
Good thing I don't dish out my opinions of others freely around here.
Oh? Hadn't noticed -- though you do get high marks for sly flanking attacks as opposed to direct frontal assaults... :wry:
Quote:
Ken, because the current and probably the most inept US Administration in history has said there will be no "boots on the ground" does not mean that the use of ground forces is not an intelligent military option to those nations serious about bringing a quick end to the violence in Libya. (I think Gates may well be the problem here)
On the first item, possibly correct. On the second, the question really is whether "those nations" should be serious -- or involved at all, really -- in Libya. We differ on that. I would agree that if it's going to be done, it should be done properly but contend that knowledge that it likely would not be should have been included in the planning (I use that word loosely...).
On the last, you're probably correct --though I'd call it a voice of reason and not a problem.:wry:
Quote:
(and if you need a 58 year old to pass the ammo I'll get my kit out of the museum and report for duty ;) )
You young people are so impetuous... :D
Quote:
I also still maintain that by rerouting the the Marine Brigade and 2 & 3 Para from Afghanistan to Cyrus/Malta (either/or or both) is still the best solution to kill two birds with one stone. Get the troops out of (America's war) Afghanistan and (apply an effective force level to) deal effectively with the situation in Libya.
That expansion makes more sense than your original effort but the problem is still that you and the others who advocate(d) this operation are, I believe, not considering what comes after the 'successful' military operation. Removing Qaddafi is really not a difficult task for either the France, the UK or the US among others -- what follows is almost certain to be more problematic and that, not the military effort, is the real rub.
As it is in all such operations. It's great to wish to save the world or parts of it but the populace saved can and most often does then unsave itself with rather dire results...
This Week at War: Billions for Libya?
This Week at War: Billions for Libya?
Entry Excerpt:
Is NATO willing to pay what it will cost to take out Qaddafi?
Here is the latest edition of my column at Foreign Policy:
Topics include:
1) The cost of getting serious in Libya
2) Mexico's drug cartels try to control the message -- and spark a media insurgency
The cost of getting serious in Libya
A pattern has emerged in the Libyan conflict. Every setback to the rebels' prospects has resulted in an escalation of military activity by NATO. The alliance's initial intervention five weeks ago began when a powerful pro-Qaddafi armored column approached Benghazi, the rebel capital. This week, nasty house-to-house fighting in Misrata compelled Britain, France, and Italy to each send about ten military advisors to Benghazi. President Barack Obama did his part this week when he dispatched two Predator drones to Libya's skies. The NATO advisors sent to Benghazi are the vanguard of what is likely to be many more Western "boots on the ground" in Libya.
It is now clear that the Western policymakers who opted for intervention in Libya underestimated the resilience and adaptability of Qaddafi's military forces. These Western leaders -- perhaps led astray by the apparent ease with which air power alone compelled Serb leaders in Belgrade to abandon Kosovo in 1999 -- similarly overestimated what air power could accomplish against Qaddafi. The result is, at best, a military stalemate, assuming Misrata can hold out.
Libya's rebels, now openly supported by NATO, are far from accomplishing the de facto objective of the campaign, the removal of the Qaddafi family from Libya. The rebels and Western leaders had hoped that Qaddafi would quickly flee or be overthrown by a palace coup or an uprising in Tripoli. These may yet occur. But hoping for them is not a strategy. If anything, a month of combat has toughened Qaddafi's troops and his remaining inner circle. With Western prestige now heavily committed, what will it actually take to get rid of Qaddafi?
Assuming that Western leaders have ruled out a ground invasion of Libya, the only other course of action around which NATO can build a campaign plan is to prepare the rebel forces in Benghazi for the long march down the coast road to Tripoli. Such a course of action will provide NATO with an organizing concept and give the alliance the initiative. Anything less is just hoping for the best.
Click below to read more ...
--------
Read the full post and make any comments at the SWJ Blog.
This forum is a feed only and is closed to user comments.
Let us use the entire paragraph - please ...
Quote:
from jmm99
BTW: I am opposed to any US intervention in this matter for policy reasons, which I'm not going to restate here. But, if you do decide to "do it", do it right.
As to "do it right", IFF you decide "to roll", then you grant a complete hunting license to such as David Porter (then) or Jon Custis (now; as an example of a reasonable military mind).
They will not kill everything in the forest. In fact, they will usually not kill anyone but the knuckleheads who come at them - and I would not want to be among those knuckleheads (IIRC from 2003).
"Porter-Custis" know the difference between "OOTW" and "W" (writing in "Old Style"). The UN War on Libya is a "Limited War" - therefor to me, FUBAR. ?
I've seen too many of those to be a cheerleader. But, if we have to dance, I want the adverse dancers to suffer big time - real "big time". And that is a very good reason why intervention should be seldom (for me).
Regards (and hopefully this clarifies from whence I am; and please do not mistake me for whom I am not)
Mike