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.

[Dayuhan]

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.

What's that conclusion based on?

Reports I'm seeing say 115 attack sorties were flown against ground targets yesterday, up from 107 the day before, and 22 Tomahawks were fired. When did the alleged lull start?

It seems rebel forces withdrew after coming under fire from heavy weapons based in Sirte... the Libyan forces may have learned to place their assets in urban areas where air attack is likely to result in heavy collateral damage. That of course is predictable, you can't expect them to keep rollling convoys down highways given recent experience.

It's obviously going to get a lot more difficult to employ air strikes effectively if the fighting is within urban areas. The limitations of the mandate obviously impose limitations on the ability to protect civilians.

May be looking at an evolving stalemate, where air strikes can keep government forces out of the east but cannot enable rebel forces to establish control in the west, particularly in urban areas. There may or may not be a plan in place for that situation; it's a fluid situation and plans will be evolving with circumstances. We'll see.

[tequila]

The new urban environment is likely why AC-130s are being ordered up. Hard to think of a better platform for whack-a-mole inside a city.

[Dayuhan]

The new urban environment is likely why AC-130s are being ordered up. Hard to think of a better platform for whack-a-mole inside a city.

Wouldn't there be a real MAPADS threat to an AC130 playing that game over an enemy-held urban environment? I'd defer to expertise there, but I'd imagine it would be a concern.

Urban whack-a-mole is not a pretty game played from any platform, and I'd expect to see a fair bit of effort going into trying to convince the inner circle to toss MG and negotiate before committing to it. No assurance of success, of course, but worth a try.

[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.

[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

[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.

[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?

[JMA]

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.

That is why I said CAS type ground targets to differentiate between what is needed to protect civilians in places like Misrata and Zintan and the destruction of aircraft on the ground and radar installations etc etc.

Clearly to comply with UNSC Resolution 1973 one needs to go beyond interdiction strikes. The failure to strike tactical ground targets (tanks, vehicles, troop concentrations etc etc) decisively in the early stages has allowed the Gaddafi forces to rapidly adapt to a highly mobile insurgent/guerrilla style of operations. The cost of this failure and the inability to protect Libyan civilians through tactical air strikes is depicted in the rising civilian body count.

It now seems that by removing/reducing the air effort ahead of the advancing rebels and thereby allowing Gaddafi to counter attack was a cynical move to prove to the rebels that they need US/NATO aid and to get it they need to subordinate themselves and take orders and accept command from the US/NATO.

To avoid the OPSEC Nazis it needs to be said that the SAS operations in Libya have been reported on in the media. I saw on CBS two ex-military types stating with absolute certainty that the same holds good for US special forces. So instead of looking for tanks hidden under bushes they should possibly be getting a little closer to the action in Misrata and Zintan, yes?

This whole Libyan exercise is turning into a box-of-frogs and will result in another embarrassment for the US military unless someone takes the situation by the scruff of the neck and focuses on the mission.

Someone should form up that smooth taking Admiral in charge of NATO and give him 48 hours to relieve Misrata and Zintan or he is on the next flight home. Now if there is no one in the top military echelons or the WH with enough balls to do this... get Donald Trump to do it.

[Ray]

That is why I said CAS type ground targets to differentiate between what is needed to protect civilians in places like Misrata and Zintan and the destruction of aircraft on the ground and radar installations etc etc.

Clearly to comply with UNSC Resolution 1973 one needs to go beyond interdiction strikes. The failure to strike tactical ground targets (tanks, vehicles, troop concentrations etc etc) decisively in the early stages has allowed the Gaddafi forces to rapidly adapt to a highly mobile insurgent/guerrilla style of operations. The cost of this failure and the inability to protect Libyan civilians through tactical air strikes is depicted in the rising civilian body count.

It now seems that by removing/reducing the air effort ahead of the advancing rebels and thereby allowing Gaddafi to counter attack was a cynical move to prove to the rebels that they need US/NATO aid and to get it they need to subordinate themselves and take orders and accept command from the US/NATO.

To avoid the OPSEC Nazis it needs to be said that the SAS operations in Libya have been reported on in the media. I saw on CBS two ex-military types stating with absolute certainty that the same holds good for US special forces. So instead of looking for tanks hidden under bushes they should possibly be getting a little closer to the action in Misrata and Zintan, yes?

This whole Libyan exercise is turning into a box-of-frogs and will result in another embarrassment for the US military unless someone takes the situation by the scruff of the neck and focuses on the mission.

Someone should form up that smooth taking Admiral in charge of NATO and give him 48 hours to relieve Misrata and Zintan or he is on the next flight home. Now if there is no one in the top military echelons or the WH with enough balls to do this... get Donald Trump to do it.

One can criticise the US action from the military standpoint. However, waiting for the Arab League to 'plead' for US intervention, notwithstanding the UN go ahead, was a diplomatic coup and was well waiting for, even though it allowed Gaddaffi to advance causing civilian casualties.

I agree that it appear heartless, but then realpolitik is heartless and is only focussed to further the national interests.

By waiting and then acting because of 'requests' and then handing over the ops to NATO, none can complain and whine about 'US imperialism'. The fact that there is no ground troops also goes well that the US is not doing another Iraq and instead is only ensuring that civilians are not killed en masse. And another aspect that goes in favour, having been proved by the delayed action by the US, is that Gaddafi is killing his own people!!

It was essential to indicate to the Islamic world that the US is not on a drive against Islam, as is popularly believed in the Islamic world, and instead was constrained to act to save the mindless slaughter of own civilians by Gaddafi! Another coup of sorts!

Just a thought.

[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.

[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'."