You say you want a revolution… It looks like we’ve got a coalition and some extra missiles laying around, so we’re off:
The UK, US and France have attacked Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi’s forces in the first action to enforce a UN-mandated no-fly zone.
Pentagon officials say the US and the UK have fired more than 110 missiles, while French planes struck pro-Gaddafi forces attacking rebel-held Benghazi.
Col Gaddafi has vowed retaliation and said he will open arms depots to the people to defend Libya.
Missiles struck air defence sites in the capital, Tripoli, and Misrata.
A French plane fired the first shots against Libyan government targets at 1645 GMT, destroying a number of military vehicles, according to a military spokesman.
UK Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed that British planes are in action over Libya.
And with similar coverage:
The United States and United Kingdom attacks on Libya’s integrated air-defense systems began a planned multiphase assault to reduce the risks for subsequent overflights by allies’ fighter and surveillance aircraft.
The opening rounds of “Operation Odyssey Dawn” followed the script of major operations since 1991 with the launch of Raytheon Co. (RTN) Tomahawk cruise missiles to clear a path for manned aircraft. Yesterday’s strike involved 110 missiles against 20 targets; in contrast 288 Tomahawks were fired in the opening hours of the 1991 Gulf War.
A major target was Muammar Qaddafi’s SA-5 missiles, which at their longest range of 300 kilometers provide “significant standoff capability,” said a Pentagon statement. Libya also has about 50 SA-6 missiles, the type Bosnian Serbs used to shoot down U.S. Air Force Captain Scott O’Grady’s F-16 in 1995.
Libya’s integrated air defense system, similar to Iraq’s, had about 30 surface-to-air missile sites, linked by 15 early warning radar installations along the Mediterranean coastline. They posed a “significant threat” to foreign warplanes over or near Libyan airspace, according to declassified Pentagon data.
“ Any time you go against an installed air defense system, you have to take it seriously,” Chief of Naval Operations Gary Roughhead said in a recent interview.
Yes, a lovely name even. Operation Odyssey Dawn. How catchy. Wikipedia has a good entry on the Libyan uprising this year so far.
This is an open thread.
Picking up from the tail end of the last thread…. we’re dropping some missiles. I’m not sure we’ll know everything that happened this evening until tomorrow.
Obama is now the first Nobel Peace Prize winner to start a war with another country AFTER he received the prize.
That’s historic!
Well, they did say he would bring light. I guess cruise missiles count.
Wonder if the Nobel Committee will make him an even more historic recipient and pull the award from him, make him return the money and see the shame of having accepted it in the first place. Since impeachment probably won’t happen, this could be even better….it’s world stage level
Not to mention the two he had going at the time of the award. If a person wanted to be picky about it and count the raids into Pakistan, Libya is arguably the Teh Precious’ fourth war.
At a quick scan, FDL, Drudge, Reason seem skeptical. HuffPo, NYT, NPR, TPM, Cable news are gung ho. Most else appear noncommittal at this stage.
Sounds just like Iraq. Notice how fast this all happened too. Nice that we all had a good discussion about it in the media and in congress. Oh wait…
Hell, at least with Iraq Bush did get congressional approval. Obama didn’t bother.
True. And Bush had a bigger coalition going in, too.
Not that I like Bush, but facts are facts.
Seems like it happened fast, except it also seems very well-planned — multiple phases of this operation are already laid out. I think we’ve been conned into thinking it was a snap decision because the gov’t of Libya was attacking its own people when, in reality, this action has been on the drawing board for a long time.
This well-worn script has been laying around quite a while waiting for a chance at a slight re-write: Delete Hussein, add Kaddafhi; strike out “weapons of mass destruction” and write in “killing his own people”…Oooops! They forgot to change the date. (No problem- we lazy onlookers won’t notice that odd synchronicity.)
Probably since the Lockerbie bombing.
Well in fairness, a surprising amount of wild and crazy things are always being planned at the pentagon. It’s what they do.
It’s probably not about oil…might make more sense to endure Gaddafi if that were the main goal. Also hard to believe it’s primarily humanitarian given we haven’t sent forces into oil producing Sudan to stop al Bashir’s genocide of millions. How many had Gaddafi killed by comparison. More likely it’s about a belief in the possibility of good outcomes from all these popular uprisings…insanely rich dictators and their ruling classes succumbing to their economically devastated peoples. But what happens once the dictators are deposed. Chaos, leadership vacuum, fundamentalism, more economic distress, no western style democracy. Maybe this time it’ll be different, maybe it won’t. Also, jumping into a shooting war in places like Libya and Yemen means siding with groups like AQ and MB…freedom fighters today, insurgents tomorrow. And we end up with more Iraqs. Btw, have we taken AQ off the terror list. We keep thinking by destroying dictators, democracy will bloom. Where has that happened in the region…Balkans, maybe. More likely we become hated occupiers.
Oh, this is about oil. Don’t watch what the US does, watch what France does. When Iraq was invading Kuwait, it blew up oil prices and the international community decided Saddam was a threat to the Middle East. When Saddam was gassing his own people the oil prices didn’t budge and France couldn’t give a crap. Same with the current Iraq War.
But now that Libya is falling apart, it’s messing with the oil supply and oil poor contries like France won’t have that. Now they’ve decided that genocide is bad (for business).
Sounds about right. Eight years ago, France hated the idea of going into Iraq on the side of Shia rebels. Remember how they made all that righteous fuss about how wrong it was. Now they love the idea of going into Libya on the side of al Qaeda rebels. What’s up with that.
Around 10% of France’s population is Muslim with the majority of Muslim citizens having arrived or descended from Sunni North Africa. Sarko was polling below 40% in France until his recent campaign against Gaddafi. His numbers have shot way up since, and he’s managed to divert the news cycle away from Japan’s nuclear problems (France being the pre-eminent nuclear energy nation in the world, getting 80% of their power from nuclear). Anyway, it’s been strange how much the French have been spazzing for Libyan action given how much they were spazzing against Iraqi action before.
Oil is what, $103/barrel now? and investors are fleeing nuclear. Dang right this is about oil.
More likely it’s about a belief in the possibility of good outcomes from all these popular uprisings
Maybe the difference is whether the popular uprising is viable — if it is local boots on local ground and all we have to do is airplanes. Thus we don’t get bogged down as occupiers.
The more one reads, the more Libya sounds like Iraq.
The strongest memory I have of Iraq was that we went in with major force (shock and awe) but not one weapon of mass destruction was lobbed at the attacking military. Iraq was so obviously incapable of defending itself.
Libya seems capable of some kind of participation if their military remains loyal to their leader.
Doesn’t Odyssey Dawn sound focused-grouped? I can see people shouting “Wolverines!” when they finally blow up Gadhafi.
Bringing my mixed feelings up from downstairs:
I don’t even have a huge problem with the West intervening if it seems there is indeed going to be massive Rwanda-style slaughter of civilians if we don’t. It may indeed be warranted this time. It just seems to me that the case needs to be made for exactly WHAT we are getting ourselves into. If the no-fly-zone is ineffective, what then? What’s plan B, and plan C? Do we want to see Khaddafi gone? What if he calls the bluff and forces the issue? What if he gets pissy and just kills more of his people? What then? Is this regime change? If so, then have the balls and honesty to put that to the public. What is the GOAL here (other than making us all feel like “we did something”), and is the goal achievable? Are we supporting the rebels, and who the hell ARE they?
I’m not opposed so much as I am concerned that it’s not thought through to the end. I DO NOT LIKE vague, open-ended military action without a clearly stated goal. There may be a morally justified role here, but someone needs to tell me what the extent and scope of involvement will be, and how we are to achieve that moral goal.
I agree Moose, about the name! As if leaving out the words “war”, or “attack”, or “air strike” makes it less so. Or less fatal. Or less agonizing for everyone involved.
Giving War a title(!) as if it was a Hollywood movie doesn’t make it one!
Commenter lentinel at TL muses about the “title” for this war:
Yes, it struck me that way as well. Where are the Argonauts? Is there going to be a golden fleece involved somehow? Any moment now our forces will be tying themselves to the masts with cotton in their ears, to resist those Libyan sirens.
They must have a spinner with random words or phrases on it. This time are arrow stopped on the words Odyssey then Dawn.
It would really be interesting if the word Enema was one of the choices.
I aluded above to the idea that the use of “Dawn” is evocative of the 80′s movie (soon to be remade) “Red Dawn” where a bunch of teenagers (one played by Charlie Sheen) stop a Russian invasion.
Odyssey is just a fancy way of saying this war will last for decades.
Ding, ding! Last line of your comment was a zinger, 1539days!
Forget the Argonauts, where’s Helen Reddy?
Perhaps not the best name for those of us who’ve read our Homer. Odysseus wandered around the Mediterranean getting into trouble for ten years before he got home to Ithaka. And that’s after another ten years before the walls of Troy.
I was just watching Iphigenia recently (on netflix) and Odysseus was real bad guy in it — makes me understand why he had to suffer before he got home.
This reminds me of… Lessons from… Sounds like…
Only on the most superficial level in that we will enter into any conflict in this manner. Trying to take out C&C and defense sites has been the standard first strike for centuries.
In this case, rather than invade a country we have entered a conflict on the side of the rebels. If you must think of comparing it to something, you could think France at Yorktown, though that may not be any more apt comparison.
Lessons learned. There are no lessons from previous conflicts like Vietnam, Iraq. or Afghanistan in this case. Some may be available from Kosovo but it’s unlikely. Libya is only Libya.
So called lessons of Vietnam led to the Powell Doctrine, where one had to know the outcome before beginning any action. That only led to virtual paralysis and made waste of every defense dollar. I am glad to see it’s demise.
Modern warfare seems to be about the proportional application of force. We avoid certain targets, calculate civilian casualties and frequently fight to a stalemate. We have the capability to win every war every single time. Just drop enough massive oirdinance and everyone dies. The colonial powers would have loved it two centuries ago. They could wipe out the pesky native population and settle the area themselves. They could use the few survivors for labor. And if they rebelled, they could leave and nuke the country until it’s a dead zone.
If you intend to occupy a country, you have to pacify it. In most cases, that would require action which we will not take. Roman legions, on the other hand, knew how and did it.
I think it’s possible to fight limited war but only if your objectives are even more limited. For example, in Afghanistan we should have sent in more troops. But when we had destroyed Al Qaeda there and the Taliban were out of power, we should have came home right then. Nation building in Afghanistan is a killer.
Well said, ralph. My husband and I have discussions along these lines all the time, since he’s a bit of a student of Roman history and warfare.
It is indeed entirely possible to occupy and utterly reshape a country. It can be done, it’s not rocket science – the Romans did it well. But the methods and long-term commitment that would need to be employed are not things we do in the modern age.
You need a definite, limited, defined goal for modern military action. I will hope that’s what the action in Libya turns out to be, but so far I haven’t heard, “THIS is the goal we are to achieve, and THIS is the point at which we go no further.” So far it sounds very open-ended with no cut-off point after a goal is achieved. Obama being in charge does not make it any better, since his “decisiveness” and “principles” and “goals” change every 5 minutes depending on his media coverage.
Honk.
In this case, rather than invade a country we have entered a conflict on the side of the rebels.
Kind of a nice change, after propping up dictators against rebels in so many places. Maybe things will be different if it’s not the people/insurgents/guerillas we’re fighting, which makes us an occupying power.
Kuwait and Kosovo had definite limited objectives: get the dictators to withdraw from certain territory. Getting G to stop killing his own people might be a similar limit.
But who are these rebels? One can’t just assume that any and all forces opposing a dictator are pure free spirits wanting human rights and democracy.
Let’s be cautious about romanticizing “freedom fighters”. Sometimes the rebels are just wanting to institute their own forms of oppression, with them on top. They don’t really object to brutal power, per se – only to who is wielding it (not them.)
I recall a bunch of student protesters who fought against the American-backed leader in their country. They wanted change. In their case, it was Iran and they got the Ayatollah. If you have limited goals, you have to be prepared for an unwanted outcome.
In the first ‘limited’ Iraq war, we saved the oil fields in Kuwait but left the Iraqi Shia rebels stranded. Saddam made sure they were punished, massacred. So we went in again in the second Iraq war, got rid of Saddam and gave the country to the Shia. The Baathist Sunni, who had been the ruling power that we fought on behalf of the ‘rebels’, then became the insurgents. The Sunni insurgents have raised all kinds of murderous havoc for eight years fighting the equally murderous Shia militias whose side we’re supposed to be on…sort of. Being “for the people” can be a moving target. In the end, everyone gets to hate the Americans and Israelis and that probably keeps the region from totally disintegrating into perpetual civil war. Iran, the Saudis, the Emirates benefit greatly from this role that Americans play as the despised cop in the region. We do it for the oil, and because we are an arrogant righteous power.
Gosh, I’ve missed this place and the excellent commentary herein. Well said, Three Wickets.
well he clearly is a madman and should be retired..one way or another.
but good news they are voting in a new government in
Egypt today
I thought this was pretty cool. Good for more men to get involved with the kids.
Read more: http://www.theolympian.com/2011/03/20/1586003/dads-in-class.html#ixzz1H9QUlI2N
Thought I’d share this tweet from Marc Ambinder from a discussion of what’s the end game in Libya:
“End game? Administration official says “We have multiple scenarios, but none of them end with Qadaffi in power.’ ”
Hmmm….is that the real goal? If so, it will require boots on the ground.
No-fly zones only begin that end game. They never complete it.
If Ambinder’s source quote from the “administrative official” is correct, it suggests there’s much more to come.
Just sayin.
Yes but whose boots? There is a rebel movement and it was doing well until Qaddafi wrested back control of his military and brought in beau coups mercenaries.
Why does everyone assume the only boots are US military boots?
honk
A reading from the Obama Scriptures.
John W Smart has another hilarious reading up.
He spelled carny wrong.
It’s a 3-ring circus around here.
CAIRO (AP) — The head of the Arab League has criticized international strikes on Libya, saying they caused civilian deaths.
The Arab League’s support for a no-fly zone last week helped overcome reluctance in the West for action in Libya. The U.N. authorized not only a no-fly zone but also “all necessary measures” to protect civilians.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5iRRC-Ij_xoxpHpSxJd-LVDd1JHXQ?docId=999067b967b7412c83d7cce7921da560
ABC reporting same Arab League unhappiness with the initial bombing:
“What happened differs from the no-fly zone objectives,” Amr Moussa told reporters after cruise missiles and B2 bombers pummeled Libya overnight. “What we want is civilians’ protection , not shelling more civilians.”
Moussa is the leader of Arab League this year……will be running for president of Egypt in the upcoming elections.
As far as I can tell in my readings, the only Arab nations involved in the “coalition” are Lebanon, UAE, Qatar, and Morocco. What they are contributing or will contribute to the fight or the costs, no one really knows.
Anybody know who more about the participating Arab nations?
Mary, if the Arabs don’t like the coalition’s plan, then they should tackle their arab nations’ problem dictators themselves and leave us out of it. Many of them have enough oil money to purchase fighters and train a capable air force/army.
I’m conflicted about this foray for the US needs to remove itself from all ME wars yet I couldn’t stand by and watch Gadhafi kill the rebels as they begged for outside support. We certainly couldn’t have won our independence from England without France’s aid and support.
The lack of an end-game is worrisome.
From Al Jazeera’s live blog.
We’re not the only people with weird names for military operations.
Of the four names, Operation Odyssey Dawn is the most imaginative and coolest sounding. Do not underestimate the power of branding! IN the crazy world we live in today, winning the propaganda war is even more important than winning the real one.
Hey, what is what’s her name saying about this? Hillary Something….
My guess is she approves. She has been saying for some time that she wants the UN to enforce a no-fly zone.
From what I’ve read, she supported this and pushed for it. Ambinder has a piece on the inner working in the National review.
As horrible as it sounds, sometimes I think the days of covert assassinations might have been the lesser of two evils. At least you didn’t have as many civilian and military deaths ensue in trying to get rid of one madman.
Yes, I know, there were big problems with the CIA and other agencies operating in that fashion. I’m not exactly advocating it. Just musing on how to proceed, and which is worse, when all the choices suck.
AS far as I know covert, as well as overt (such as bombs and drone attacks), assassinations are still utilized. That has long been a standard war strategy. These leaders all have powerful security around them for a reason. The special ops forces don’t advertise their successes unless someone in gov’t wants to leak them. Certainly the compliant MSM won’t tell us about such things.
assassinations are still utilized
I wouldn’t be surprised. What villains have gone missing lately? Mubarak died conveniently, Milosevic after some time in custody at the Hague, iirc.
My understanding is that assassinations are utilized more for leaders of terrorist groups (Al Qaeda, etc), rebel groups and the like, not for the so-called legitimate leaders of a country such as Qaddafi. That would be too overt. With the leaders (like Mubarak) our gov tends to enourage coups from within.
Is Mubarak dead? Hadn’t heard that bit of gossip, thanks Mary! I googled it and apparently there is an unconfirmed rumor that he died in a German hospital. Now wouldn’t that be convenient!
Oops meant to say “thanks bemused” for the gossip on Mubarak… had just responded to Mary below and got my comments confused.
Oh Lord. Jane Harmon on ABC’s This Week claimed Libya has 2 tons of liquified mustad gas. Here we go again…..
Mustard gas. Sorry.
I just thought you were from Boston: “Mustahd gahs”
LOL
He had the gas before the first Gulf War in ’91. Chances are it’s trash now, unless it was replenished.
Even so, having mustard gas is one thing, having the gas and methods for delivery are quite another.
In “unrelated to war” news, I plan to plant some MATERS today!! I have two giant barrel planters, and the soil, and the tomato plants. I also have a drill and a big paddle bit, which needs to be utilized for holes in the bottom of the oak barrels before I can plant.
awesome!
WMCB, to answer something you said on the closed thread, iirc.
I disagree about Libya. The situation is too indefinite and confused for us to commit to definite, structured plans at this point.
And if we could make definite plans — why publish them for the enemy to read?
As for Obama softening Hillary’s ultimatum, if either of them is being reported correctly. Gadaffi has to have something to gain by a real ceasefire — eg for us to moderate our attacks on him. If we tell him we are going to keep bombing him just the same, he has no reason to slack off.
Getting these dictators to actually resign takes a while. They need to have a reason to cease fire immediately, even while they hope not to resign.
On CNN a short while ago, Gen. Wesley Clark talked about the possibility that western Libya may end up being ruled by Qadafi and that eastern Libya may NOT be. That would be an interesting solution.
I keep going back to the fact that the entire Libyan delegation to the UN defected and support the rebels in the east. That had to have a big effect on the final decision made.
One of the things STRATFOR has mentioned a few times is that Qadafi has been playing the leaders of various major tribes against each other over the years so that they would not unite against him. Perhaps the current situation will change that. Also according to STRATFOR the Egyptian military has quietly been supporting and training the rebels in eastern Libya, although it wasn’t clear for how long.
It was reported that Egyptian commandos crossed the border into Libya to establish contact with the rebels at least 2 weeks ago.
As to what Arab countries are supplying, Qatar has sent aircraft to enforce the no-fly zone. I believe others are doing the same.
Based on what’s been reported, so far we have America special ops teams going in at least 3 or 4 weeks ago, also British, French and Egyptian special forces/commandos of some kind of another and going in to do recon, set up communications lines, and getting intel (and of course training rebels, etc). I think that’s why it took so long for the UN and NATO to take action. They wanted to make sure they had a good chance of success.
Wonder how many more countries have special military teams there. Bet the Israeli’s do, and probably the Tunisians. It’s war party time in Libya, HOORAH!
So we DO have boots on the ground.
Obama lied to the American people.
Not defending Obama here, Mary… but leaders are not generally truthful with their public about military or economic strategy. All kinds of reasons for that, some of them even good ones. It is unrealistic idealism to expect politicians or other leaders to be truthful on such matters, except on the rare occasion when it suits their greater strategy.
Not defending Obama either, but those particular boots are always on the ground before we commence anything. Most of these ops were probably carried out by British SAS and Special Boat Service troops. But we probably have forward air controllers in place now.
Maybe our special ops have been on the ground trying to help incite a coup all along, and when Gaddafi began taking back the east, we sent in B2 bombers and cruise missiles under the pretext of a no fly action. Maybe we’ve been planning these twitter revolutions and street protests with local groups across the region for months or years. Wikileaks have been coordinated and scheduled to manage the media. If that’s the case, the transition plans are probably all neatly mapped out. What could possibly go wrong..
Wouldn’t be the first time we did that, Three Wickets. Know what I mean?
I find this funny… “at least Kucinich is consistent” …
http://hotair.com/archives/2011/03/20/democrats-catching-impeachment-fever/
The article also proves Obama did nothing “impeachable”.
Which metaphor do you prefer?
a) politics as kabuki theater
b) politics as prowrestling
c) politics as soap opera
d) all of the above
e) other, please explain…
d) all of the above
Though, I like the sports analogy that “Politics is the only sport that the fans can participate in”
I’m very glad FDR didn’t exhibit this chickenshit attitude.
No wonder the government can’t get anything accomplished anymore. If we don’t know for certain we will be successful, we don’t even try.
I’m sure they’re trying to get Ghadafi, they’re just not gonna talk about it:
————–
[8:55 p.m. Sunday ET, 2:55 a.m. Monday in Libya] In the following video, CNN’s Nic Robertson reports on his visit to the building – in Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi’s compound in Tripoli – that apparently was struck in a coalition airstrike Sunday night. (A coalition official confirmed, after Robertson’s report, that it had targeted the compound.)
I think it’s interesting that, with his “Team of Rivals,” Obama got his McClellen, too.
Fair enough.
But there’s also the phrase “You break it, you own it,” which turned out to be true.
Will we sell war bonds or raise taxes to pay for this one, or will we just put it on the national credit card?
Our governmental pockets are quite deep when it comes to war….
“You break it, you own it” is just more crap Powell doctrine.
You gotta be kidding, ralph.
No, I’m not kidding. Did we break Afghanistan? Hell no. It has been the same tribal zone for 100s of years.
Are we going to change it now? Hell no. Should we come home? Hell yes. Make it a democracy? Now you’re the one who’s kigging, right?
I notice you didn’t mention Iraq.
To be fair, I think he is saying a no fly zone isn’t going to get Gadhafi out. And is basically telling Obama, from afar, to cool his rhetoric unless he intends to back it up with actions.
And we all know Obama never walks his talk.
Yep.
The word Gates left out of that statement was “publicly.” At least part of the clusterfuck in Iraq was and is directly due to Bush’s stated intention of regime change–which became concentrated on taking out Saddam rather than the removal of a particular form of personality-centered power structure (Which is perhaps understandable, seeing that Bush himself was at the heart of a personality-centere power structure, as Obama is currently.)
A smidgen of reactions:
Michael Moore: Obama should return his Nobel Peace Prize.
Ralph Nader: Obama should be impeached for war crimes. If Bush should have been impeached, so should Obama (on Democracy Now)
Kuchinich agreed re impeachment coupla days ago, has gone quiet.
Farrakhan: speaking on Obama’s Libya policy: “Who the hel do you think you are?” to Obama.
Barney Frank: (On Morning Joe): He’s “disappointed” America is being pushed into a greater role in Libya. Thinks it will just create more anti-Americanism.
Howard Kurtz re media coverage: “Where is the media skepticism?” Calls the coverage “shallow.”
Josh Marshall: “a really bad, bad idea.”
Andrew Sullivan: (On weekend Chris Matthews show): Claims the bombing is “Clintonian,” says O’s Libya Policy was hatched by Clinton & McCain. Shakes his head, whines “I don’t know why anybody voted for Obama in the primaries.” Doesn’t mention Palin’s womb.
Digby: “Apparently, the Libyan coalition of the willing isn’t really a military coalition so much as a public relations coalition………the US is firmly in charge.”
Also reading various left bloggers blaming the WOMEN (Clinton, Susan Rice, Samantha Powers—of “Clinton is a monster” fame) for convincing Obama to proceed, over the advice of Gates and Brennan. (Always the women’s fault, eh? Barf)
Politico has an article titled “Liberal Dems in uproar over Libay.” Lotta House Dems questioning the Constitutionality of US missile strikes.
Trouble in paradise.
Great overview, thanks!
2 more”
Mark Halperin on Morning Joe: “This is a de-facto wag the dog.” (since they’re not doing same in Yemen, Syria, or Bahrain).
Rep Ed Markey (D-MA): “We’re in Libya because of oil.”
They should have all read Obama’s books and really paid attention. I said he was a hawk and would probably lead us into WW3 but nobody wanted to listen. I’m actually surprised things aren’t worse than they are. Inexperience, a lack of wisdom, and politically expedient idealism is a deadly combination.
Yep.
There’s an election coming. This wag the dog was sposed to make him look like a strong, decisive leader.
Halperin said Obama chose Libya cuz it was the easiest of the 4.
One thing I don’t understand is the decision to have the MSM claim they don’t really know who the “opposition” is in Libya.
Here is a recent STRATFOR article, so obviously the informaiton is available… why is the MSM playing dumb here?
Libya’s Opposition Leadership Comes into Focus http://www.stratfor.com/analysis/20110307-libyas-opposition-leadership-comes-focus
This doesn’t fit the meme of Qaddafi’s propaganda. Note the Al Qaeda BS posted upstream by TW for an example of what does match it.
Apparently Turkey (member of NATO) is against this action, and is blocking the “turning over” of responsibility to NATO.
NATO requires unanimous votes on any actions they take.
If Turkey continues blocking, Obama will not be able to turn responsibility for leadership over to NATO at all.
So, his “days, not weeks” rhetoric may just be noise.
Further reading: Germany is also blocking the “turn over.”
So….if NATO can’t agree, to WHOM does Obama envision transferring leadership for the mission?
Interesting. I remember Stranahan from my days at the Big Cheeto. Evidently he’s been blogging about liberal bias and trying to (as some of us have) remain truthful in his questions and presentation of facts. And he’s taking heat for it.
This guy is very much a liberal, but like many here believes in being honest and having actual debate. He’s getting slammed for it – he has Kos quotes up on his site that are just vile. Go give the dude some hits:
http://leestranahan.com/?p=1132
I “retweeted” him
I was at the Big Cheeto for 4 years and attended YK07, which was fun and inspiring, what happened? I don’t recognize them anymore 
Interesting post, thanks. Love your new gravatar!
That was an interesting post!
“I found myself pretty shocked by two things. First was the hostility..”
Ain’t that the truth!!? It was like lifting up a curtain and seeing the ugly underside of something that you never even knew existed.
Yes, when I think of sanctimonious fauxgressives, this always comes to mind.
Another interesting tidbit:
While UAE & Qatar are supposedly supporting the UN “coalition” bombing Ghaddafi, they are also supporting Saudi Arabia’s sending troops into Bahrain to defend the Sunni leadership there (ie, against the rebels).
Maybe that’s why we’re hot holding Bahrain to the same standards as Libya.
When was the last time Bahrain’s leadership was responsible for an act of terrorism against the West? Have they taken down any PanAm flights?
Libya is only Libya and Qaddafi is due in his own right.
“Libya is only Libya”
Well no, it’s not. Barak Obama is on record as a senator saying humanitarianism (ie, protecting Iraqi’s from slaughter by their ruler) was NOT a reason to remain in Iraq.
Now he believes the opposite.
And many prominent Dems now say publicly that the “Libyan adventure” is about oil.
Did Obama gain the support of Saudi Arabia and Bahrain in Libya by promising NOT to mention their actions in Bahrain?
“Libya is only Libya” is quite naive.
“Qaddafi is due in his own right”
I think Ralph is correct here. Have heard several of the experts on CNN and elsewhere (Profs with expertise on the Middle East) talk about how Libya and Qaddafi are a different case from the other Arab states in a number of ways. Apparently Qaddafi is not much liked by leaders in most of the other Arab countries for many reasons (after all this is the first time the Arab League has asked for help in going against one of their own), and the US and Europeans have been wanting to get rid of Qaddafi for a long time.
So while I agree that oil is an issue, it’s always an important issue for the US, I think that Libya is a “special case” in other areas. And politics is a messy, and often convoluted game, which one can see in the way the Bahrain issue is being handled. According to STRATFOR the uprisings in Bahrain and the Saudi reactions are due to more to Sunni-Shia (majority-minority) power issues and there are concerns about Iranian influence in Bahrain stirring up the trouble there in the Shia community.
It’s always important to keep in mind that the Saudi’s and Iranians really hate each other and much of that is due to the Sunni-Shia issues, although they are ancient historical enemies for other reasons as well. The Iranians are Persians, not Arabs (although there are some Arab communities in Iran). As some of you may remember from Wikileaks, the Saudis have repeatedly encouraged the US to attack Iran, which so far we have wisely avoided. Therefore the Iranian tie-in to the Bahrain uprising is why that siutation is somehwat different from the uprisings in other Arab countries.
You can call me a lot of things but naive is not one of them.
What’s naive is to expect equal treatment of all nations, no matter the underlying issues. So yes, in the real world, “Libya is Libya”, “Bahrain is Bahrain”, and “Saudi Arabia is a whole other thing”.
Updates Tuesday:
China has called for an immediate ceasefire.
Russia and India have condemned “indiscriminate” NATO bombing in Libya.
Jim Webb has publicly said of no Congressional inclusion/debate: “This isn’t the way our system is supposed to work.”
Turkey still blocking NATO takeover of mission, leaving Obama’s claim that we’ll “turn it over” and only be involved “days, not weeks” a claim he made without knowing if he could pull it off. Was THAT propaganda?
See WAPO article titled “In Libya, new rifts open in international coalition” for further explanation of the squabbling inside NATO.
Joe Cannon has another excelent video up at his sight, help spread it around.
http://vimeo.com/21334857
More:
Russian, Bolivian leaders ask Nobel Committee to strip Obama of his Peace Prize.
Bolivian Pres. Evo Morales:
“How is it possible that a Nobel Peace Prize winner leads a gang to attack and invade? This is not a defense of human rights or sefl-determination.”
And to clarify, Sec. Gates’s quote above posted by Ralph was to respond to the Brits, who have claimed that the UN Resolution DOES , through its “all necessary measures,” include killing/assassinating Qaddafi.
Gates’s response was to disagree with the Brits’ assertion, and reinforce what his President said.
I’m not stalking you, Mary, but I laughed over the Russian, Bolivian leaders’ request. BO’s con game is finally being discovered by world leaders. It’s a wonder he’ll be able to cope with this boatload of sh@t from the world.
Gate’s response was chickenshit. It’s not easy to watch people turn themselves inside out to defend an absolute madman like Qaddafi from his own people.
I do not like Obama but when he does the right thing, even if it’s 3 weeks late, I’ll defend it.
The little Marxist Evo Morales can shove his opinion where the sun don’t shine and put Russia with it.
Here’s another nut case to quote. I’m sure he’s dead set against taking out Qaddafi.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20110322/od_nm/us_venezuela_chavez_mars
Sometimes I forgive Jon Stewart for 2008 and watch his show….this was spot on:
Freedom Packages
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/mon-march-21-2011/america-s-freedom-packages
How the Left got Libya wrong.
http://www.tnr.com/article/world/85559/libya-intervention-american-left-wrong