And Libya goes on...

[JMA]

Interesting development. Obviously the Russia criticism of the strikes against Gaddafi forces scared the hell out of the US and the Brits and French and brought the bombing of Gaddafi forces (everywhere?) to a halt.

Gaddafi's forces use the lull in air strikes to renew attacks against the rebels and the urban areas of Misurata and Zintan.

What is clear now is that he people of Misurata and Zintan are not being protected by the forces involved in implementing Res: 1973. This is a significant failure.

It is increasingly evident that after recent comments made by the Russians US politicians were left standing in a pool of their own urine.

We know that the military air activities carried out initially in terms of enforcing a no-fly-zone and protecting civilians were effective (while seemingly abandoning the people of Misurata and Zintan to their fate at the hands of Gaddafi's forces). I would give the military the benefit of the doubt at this moment that the betrayal of the people of Misurata and Zintan is rather as a result of a political decision or directive rather than military incompetence.

However, the recent advances by Gaddafi forces have entailed their movement over large distances of open desert on a open road as they advance to take over towns where the people are apparently anti-Gaddafi and thereby at risk from Gaddafi's forces.

How was (an is) this movement over open ground and away from civilian population groups possible? Simple, it was allowed. Why would the military allow this movement? Ineptitude or acting under orders? I go with the latter.

[jmm99]

the Fox report and the 1000s of others like this one, CIA Deploys to Libya as White House Authorizes Direct Assistance to Rebels, are simply evidence of the new "covert transparency" and its companion "humanitarian imperialism".

Regards

Mike

[J Wolfsberger]

How was (an is) this movement over open ground and away from civilian population groups possible? Simple, it was allowed. Why would the military allow this movement? Ineptitude or acting under orders? I go with the latter.

The military may have allowed it because they were ordered to, but I vote for political ineptitude at the top as the root cause.

[SWJ Blog]

Libya: Unrest and U.S. Policy

Entry Excerpt:

Libya: Unrest and U.S. Policy
By Christopher M. Blanchard
Acting Section Research Manager
Congressional Research Service
March 29, 2011

Summary:

Over forty years ago, Muammar al Qadhafi led a revolt against the Libyan monarchy in the name of nationalism, self-determination, and popular sovereignty. Opposition groups citing the same principles are now revolting against Qadhafi to bring an end to the authoritarian political system he has controlled in Libya for the last four decades. The Libyan government’s use of force against civilians and opposition forces seeking Qadhafi’s overthrow sparked an international outcry in February and early March 2011, and a stalemate began to break in favor of the Qadhafi government, threatening civilians in opposition-held areas. The United States and other European and Arab states are now carrying out military operations in Libya to enforce United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was adopted on March 17 and authorizes “all necessary measures” to protect Libyan civilians. Qadhafi and his supporters have described the uprising as a foreign and Islamist conspiracy and are attempting to outlast their opponents. Qadhafi remains defiant amid the dismantling of his military by coalition air strikes. His supporters threatened to respond to attacks by striking civilian and military targets in the Mediterranean region.

Resolution 1973 calls for an immediate cease-fire and dialogue, declares a no-fly zone in Libyan airspace, and authorizes robust enforcement measures for the arms embargo on Libya established by Resolution 1970 of February 26, “while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” As of March 28, U.S. military officials reported that U.S. and coalition strikes on Libyan air defenses, air forces, and ground forces had neutralized the ability of Muammar al Qadhafi’s military to control the country’s airspace and were increasingly focused on targeting pro-Qadhafi ground forces found to be continuing to violate Resolution 1973 through attacks on Libyan civilians. President Obama has said the United States will not introduce ground forces and has called for Qadhafi to step down. The no-fly zone called for in Resolution 1973 is in place and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization is assuming command of coalition operations. The United States and international partners are providing humanitarian assistance to displaced persons in temporary camps in Tunisia and Egypt.

Until recently, the United States government was pursuing a policy of reengagement toward Qadhafi after decades of confrontation, sanctions, and Libyan isolation. President Obama now has joined some leaders in asserting that Muammar al Qadhafi must ultimately give up power, although that outcome is not called for explicitly in Resolution 1973. Obama Administration officials highlight a number of non-military steps the U.S. government has taken to achieve that objective, while military operations to protect Libyan civilians continue. U.S. steps include new targeted sanctions established in Executive Order 13566. Some Members of Congress expressed support for U.S. military intervention prior to the adoption of Resolution 1973, while others disagreed or called for the President to seek explicit congressional authorization prior to any use of force. Some executive-legislative consultation occurred prior to the start of U.S. military operations, and, on March 21, President Obama sent a letter to Congress outlining U.S. military objectives and operations, but not explicitly seeking congressional authorization.

Many observers believe that Libya’s weak government institutions, potentially divisive political dynamics, and current conflict suggest that security challenges could follow the current uprising, regardless of its outcome. Some opposition figures have formed an Interim Transitional National Council which claims to represent all areas of the country and is seeking recognition and material support. In evaluating U.S. policy options, Congress may seek to better understand the roots and nature of the conflict in Libya, the views and interests of key players, and the potential consequences of the military action under way and other policy proposals under consideration.

<a href="http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/doc/CRSLibyaUnrestandUSPolicy.pdf">Libya: Unrest and U.S. Policy

[JMA]

It may not be common knowledge to the average US citizen but the one organisation that is universally loathed and distrusted is the CIA.

To introduce the CIA into Libya after spending so much time and effort to sell the line that the US was reluctantly being dragged into action in Libya and then only on humanitarian grounds is pure insanity.

What's next? Military "advisors"?

Where did you find this guy?

[JMA]

It is all good and well to maintain the threat of arming the rebels as a means of applying pressure on the Gaddafi regime but to actually consider doing it is pure insanity.

There was a ex-CIA man (Bob Baer?) on CNN the other night and he, having apparently having worked with Libyans before, said:

They take your money, they take your weapons, then they go and shoot who they want. The Libyans are very difficult to manage...

I suggest that you don't want to give them any weapons that can be turned on unintended targets in the future and importantly you don't want these people to become combat experienced and proficient.

So what to do? Take out the Gaddafi forces and destroy as much military ordinance in the process.

Let the rebels remain the delightfully entertaining Keystone Cops operation that they are. Don't do anything that will change them into anything more in military terms.

[Stan]

It may not be common knowledge to the average US citizen but the one organisation that is universally loathed and distrusted is the CIA.

The CIA's efforts represent a belated attempt to acquire basic information about rebel forces that had barely surfaced on the radar of US spy agencies before the uprisings in North Africa.

Among the CIA's tasks is to assess whether rebel leaders could be reliable partners if the administration opts to begin funneling in money or arms.

Sure hope they don't use any of those folks that I had to work with a while back !

What's next? Military "advisors"?

Nope...

Although the administration has pledged that no US ground troops will be deployed to Libya ...

to be continued

[Dayuhan]

Let's skip the dubious redefinition of the word "calculate" for now.

As in "to make a judgment about what is likely to happen or likely to be true using the available information". Generally accepted.

As it concerns the Arab revolts, and Libya's in particular, there is damned little reason to believe beyond whistling in the dark that the current course of operations will result in any tolerable outcome--Benghazi free or not.

We're not in a position to say what outcomes we will or will not tolerate. The revolts are happening, whether we like it or not. Our capacity to influence the outcomes is highly constrained, and we'd be fools to talk about what we will "tolerate" if we aren't willing to act. In any given case the US position is less about the outcome of that revolt than about percveption management: where do we want to be seen standing on the incident, not what we want the outcome to be.

That's setting aside the none to trivial universe of outcomes where Benghazi still burns, sooner rather than later.

That possibility exists. It's no longer a certainty.

For what little it's worth, I thought the recent speech went well over the top with all the "could not allow this to happen stuff", words that can come back and bite later on and elsewhere. Should have been more along the lines of "will help to the extent that we can within the limits of numerous restrictions" stuff.

The first point is debatable, and the second observes that the Administration either doesn't fathom or doesn't care about the war's impact on American interests.

The impact on American interests has yet to be determined. The impact of any alternative action or inaction could easily have been as bad, or worse. Always easy for backseat drivers to rant about how it al would have come out right if y'all had just dunnit my way; we see plenty of that here.

You missed the point again, which is there's nothing particularly novel about your observation that countries, soldiers and girl scouts try and reserve what have to do what they can, when they can, where they can. Once you get past this huge non-sequitur, we can move on to the real debate: whether or not the intervention realizes any opportunity or staves off any disaster of any interest to Americans.

I never said it foes, nor do I think it does. As above, I think it's less about influencing Libya's future than about influencing perceptions of the US approach to intervention.

The other half back him because there is still a segment of the population that understands that there are very real first and second order costs to American defeat on the battlefield.

Who said anything about "American defeat on the battlefield"? If the rebels lose that's not an American defeat on the battlefield.

Then what's your reason for backing the Administration's play?

I didn't say I back it. I have major reservations about it. It's probably one very small step better than doing absolutely nothing, and it's certainly better than charging in with a full bore effort to defeat and remove MG, but it's by no means a good place to be.

For all this talk about "cleverness" and "pulling thing off," I'm still waiting to read exactly what you makes you think there's anything cute about the course of operations thus far or exactly what the Administration aims to pull off.

Never said it was cute. What they may pull off if they're clever is backing off and getting out before it goes all to $#!t and blows up in our faces.

[Dayuhan]

It is increasingly evident that after recent comments made by the Russians US politicians were left standing in a pool of their own urine.

I don't see any indication that anything the Russians did or said had any impact on the situation at all.

MG's people have wised up a bit: they're placing the heavy weapons in urban areas with high potential for collateral damage, moving in civilian vehicles, and not moving in groups. They're not presenting the kind of discrete targets that they did in the early days.

Recent events also suggest that the rebels are not capable of taking ground that the government is willing to defend and that the rebels are not likely to defend ground under serious attack.

There are limitations to the utility of air power in these circumstances. Do we want to declare a "no drive zone" and start attacking any vehicle on the highway? Sooner or later you'll kill a bunch of civilians, and you'll be accused of it sooner, not later. And how do you protect civilians with air strikes when fighting is house-to-house?

It was never going to be realistically possible to protect all civilians, all the time under the constraints of the operation, especially given the very limited capacity of the force on the ground.

[Pete]

From the time this intervention began I've had a very ambivalent feeling about it. I thought we wanted to get out of our entanglements in the Islamic world, not get involved in more of them. For those who have posted in this thread during the past three days, don't ask me for an answer to what you might have said said because I probably haven't read whatever it was. The subject of Libya makes me very very weary. I'll let the rest of you be the news junkies -- like the Vietnam veterans used to say, "It don't mean nuthin'."

[Ken White]

Nor am I happy to say 'I told you so...'

[JMA]

The military may have allowed it because they were ordered to, but I vote for political ineptitude at the top as the root cause.

Now sadly Mullen seems to be running interference to protect the politicians by trying to sell a croc about the weather. Of course this introduces the possibility that there is indeed a measure of military ineptitude here especially in relation to (close) air support to civilian populations under attack or at least in the cross fire of two armed groups (still unable to feel comfortable using the word "forces" for the armed shower the various combatants make up).

Weather hampers air strikes in Libya: US admiral

Mullen is talking crap.

...but maybe this statement indicates that the US military have realised that taking the foot off the gas pedal was a mistake and it is time to push Gaddafi's mob back down the road again. Pity people are dying in the meantime.

PS: who are these US pilots in this case? Navy off the carrier? Their training on taking on CAS type ground targets not so good perhaps?

[Entropy]

JMA,

Technically we're not doing CAS in Libya, but air interdiction. There is not, as far as we know, a ground element to identify targets and coordinate strikes (unless you count the grids I see coming in over twitter from anonymous Libyans, which I don't) so there is no CAS.

Also, with no ground element, the air forces have to obtain targeting intelligence via other means - typically ISR aircraft and various other intel systems and sources. These are all quite good at finding armored formations and the other "stuff" that most modern military forces use and this effectiveness has already been demonstrated in Libya and Iraq. However, as the cliche' goes, the enemy gets a vote, and finding targets is complicated by the fact that the Libyans are now using tactics specifically designed to counter our targeting efforts (ie. using civilian vehicles, civilian clothes, etc. - all of which have been widely reported). Weather is a huge factor when it's dumped on top of these existing limitations - much more than it would be by itself. With a ground force, targeting information, positive ID (PID), etc. comes from units on the ground - weather doesn't matter as much as long as the ground force is able to ID targets and pass grids. Similarly, ground forces are much better able to figure out if the pickup truck full of guys with AK's is friendly or not.

None of this is at all a surprise - or at least it shouldn't be. All these factors were in play in Kosovo (IIRC, operations slowed for about two weeks because of weather) and I think it was Mr. Haddick (one of the proprietors here) who wrote a post a week or two ago explaining how how the Libyan government forces would adapt to the coalition air campaign.

[91bravojoe]

Setting to rest all the confusion about the CIA's role:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_theenv...-role-in-libya

They courageously sought to fill the gaps created by the reticence of all the rest of the War Department apparatus to do anything. Hearty congrats to Panetta for staking out this highest of grounds.

Forward observing can be fun if you manage to eliminate the air bursts from "those clowns".

[M-A Lagrange]

Libya: suspect funds movements on a Belgian bank account

Libye: des mouvements de fonds suspects sur un compte belge
http://www.24heures.ch/libye-mouveme...lge-2011-03-31

Sorry in French

The rebels filed complain on a suspected Gaddafy bank movement in Belgium. Through their lawyer Georges-Henri Beauthier, rebels say they are convinced that Gaddafy transfered money to Chad and Sudan just after his bank accounts were frozzen.

[Presley Cannady]

JMA,

Technically we're not doing CAS in Libya, but air interdiction.

The difference being "don't call us...we'll call you..."

[J Wolfsberger]

We, the United States and NATO, are now engaged in an undeclared war against one party (or both parties, depending on what day it is) where the casus belli is a doctrine entitled Responsibility To Protect. Is anyone else concerned at what this precedent might lead to?

[M-A Lagrange]

We, the United States and NATO, are now engaged in an undeclared war against one party (or both parties, depending on what day it is) where the casus belli is a doctrine entitled Responsibility To Protect. Is anyone else concerned at what this precedent might lead to?

The answer is simple: a military facism blessed by the Just Cause of the mightiest.

WHY?
Is that a problem?

[AdamG]

Since it's worthy of it's own thread.

Rebel fighters aren't waiting around as an international coalition debates whether to do more to arm and train them in battling Col. Moammar Gadhafi's troops. They've ramped up a crash training course for volunteers in hopes of better organizing the improvised army that is struggling to make sustained military gains against the autocratic regime.

In a sprawling cement lot of a military base in the rebels' stronghold of Benghazi, two teenagers practice setting up the heavy tripod barrel and base of a mortar system as a trainer watches carefully.

One of the new rebel recruits undergoing training is 32-year-old academic Anas Abu Buker, a communications engineer from the small city of Baida, two hours from Benghazi. Abu Buker was set to enter a doctoral program at Washington State University until the revolution of Feb. 17 radically changed his plans.

"Two weeks ago, I was lecturer at university," he says. "Right now I should be in the U.S. doing my Ph.D."

http://www.npr.org/2011/04/01/135023...me-to-organize

And what, one may ask, has happened to the members of the Libyan military forces who, it was claimed, had defected to the revolution in droves? They, especially the officers, are increasingly scarce on the front line. The Shabaab claims that former soldiers were too slow in moving forwards, while the defectors in turn accuse the volunteer fighters of lack of discipline.

The rebels' operations are further undermined by an absence of command and control. On Monday two men standing within a hundred yards of each other, "Captain" Jalal Idrisi and "Major" Adil Hassi, claimed to be in charge of the fighters who were meant to be attacking Ajdabiya. A brief advance soon turned into a chaotic retreat. Major Hassi then claimed that the misjudgement in going forward had been Captain Idris's idea. But why didn't they liaise? "We haven't got communications equipment" he responded. But the Captain is standing just over there, journalists pointed out. "I don't talk to him," said Major Hassi.

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion...e-2251298.html

[Ken White]

I doubt that all the causes are indeed just. In fact, like you, I know that many are not...

The cost:benefit ratio is poor and we devote excessive energy to things that we not only cannot really fix but generally tend to make slightly worse and therefor devote inadequate energy to fixing our own shortfalls. So, yes, it's a problem and like J Wolfsberger, I'm concerned about it...

I have no problem with the use of force or with interventions but I don't think it's too much to ask that we do all that wisely instead of foolishly.

Or maybe it is...