The US, UK and France formally agreed to pass command for the military operation in Libya over to NATO, but substantial questions remained about the changeover.
Under the terms of the deal, NATO would manage the no-fly zone, while political oversight of the mission would be outsourced to a separate body made up of members of the coalition, including Qatar and the UAE. But I don’t think this gets the US out of the lead role, necessarily. NATO member states will still command the mission. In fact, US supreme allied commander in Europe, Admiral James Stavridis, would be the likely candidate to run it. Furthermore, all 28 NATO members would have to agree to take command, and that degree of unanimity does not yet exist. In particular, Turkey, the third-largest NATO member and only Muslim nation in the alliance, seems wary, though they could perhaps come around.
But larger questions about the mission began to appear, with members of the coalition appearing to go well beyond the boundaries set by UN Resolution 1973. The British attack on one of Gadhafi’s residences on Monday continued to cause a rift between 10 Downing Street and the British military, who squabbled over whether Gadhafi himself was a legitimate target. And this story of Marines rescuing the pilot and weapons officer from that downed plane near Benghazi could spark a new round of outrage:
A Marine Corps officer said that the grounded pilot, who was in contact with rescue crews in the air, asked for bombs to be dropped as a precaution before the crews landed to pick him up. “My understanding is he asked for the ordnance to be delivered between where he was located and where he saw people coming toward him,” the officer said, adding that the pilot evidently made the request “to keep what he thought was a force closing in on him from closing in on him.”
In response, two Harrier attack jets that were part of the rescue team dropped two 500-pound bombs before a Marine Osprey helicopter landed to pick up the pilot, at about 1:30 a.m. Tuesday local time. The Marine officer said he did not know if the people approaching the pilot were friendly or hostile or what damage the bombs had caused.
Channel 4 News in Britain reported that six villagers were shot by American troops in rescuing one of the two airmen. None of the villagers — who were interviewed by a reporter in a nearby hospital — were killed, although a small boy may need to have a leg amputated.
“No shots were fired,” said Capt. Richard Ulsh, a Marine spokesman aboard the Kearsarge. “The Osprey is not armed, and the Marines barely got off the aircraft. I was in the landing center the whole time, where we were monitoring what was going on, and firing was never reported.”
The military is investigating, and we don’t know yet where the truth lies. But if you can shoehorn that into the “responsibility to protect” doctrine, best of luck to you.
It’s entirely possible, and my best hope, that this ends up going well. The fact that anti-Gadhafi voices have come up from the underground in Tripoli is a good sign. But Gadhafi himself shows no sign of giving up, and that means a possible stalemate, with the disorganized rebels unable to capitalize on air superiority and Gadhafi’s forces dug into the major cities. And while the theory is that no shots will be fired in anger by foreign troops on Libyan soil, that pledge may have already been broken.



34 Comments


Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
“Entirely possible” that this ends up going well? Really? I’d love you to play that out for us. What would “going well” mean?
I suppose it would mean Gaddafi falls quickly, in which case the western powers would assume the task of imposing its will on post-Gaddafi Libya, installing a strongman, etc. You know the drill. That’s the best case scenario, and it’s horrible indeed. “Well” isn’t on the map, as far as I can see.
Anyway, the mission is, or will soon become, regime change. (They really might be making this up as they go along.) They’re not going to spend billions bombing a oil rich country in order to leave him in power. The notion that the goal here is strictly to protect civilians is transparently bogus. Already they’re killing soldiers in retreat.
Who did Channel 4 source the story from?
I dunno about the power handoff, DD. Helena Coban wrote a piece about the infighting, and spoke of this:
“Many members of the African Union have been gobsmacked by the belligerence the U.S. has shown toward Libya. The Daily Monitor of Kampala, Uganda, reported today that,
“‘The United Nations Security Council has rejected requests by the African Union (AU) High Level Ad-hoc Committee on Libya (AHCL) to fly to Tripoli to mediate between President Muammar Gaddafi and pro-democracy protesters fighting to end his 42-year rule.
A communiqué of the committee issued yesterday after its meeting in Mauritania said, “The committee, in conformity with resolution 1973 (2011) of the United Nations Security Council, requested for the required permission for the flight carrying its members to Libya in order to fulfill their mandate. The committee was denied permission.”’
“Article 2 of UNSCR 1973– the resolution that also allowed military action against Libya “for the protection of civilians” stated specifically that the security Council,
Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;
Well, perhaps not exactly the strongest endorsement ever of the AHLC mission. But still… Uganda’s President Youweri Museveni had been the lead author of the proposal. Lest we forget, Museveni is a longtime close ally of the U.S. in Africa.”
It’s not a good sign that meetings with Gadaffi to convince him to resign appear to being blocked.
Gaddafi falls quickly well that time frame is over.
Even as a pacifist, I can’t help thinking we have spent soooo much money training special force personnel- how come we can’t have a “targeted assassination” (come on, we know we do it) instead of this indiscriminate bombing. What are the sadomasochistic gung-ho guys for besides bully torture?
Reposted from Early Morning Swim:
This is one of the many reasons why I think being involved in Libya is warmongering bullshit:
Get that? They just dropped in there and started shooting people. Just for the fuck of it apparently. I’ll bet they’re glad it wasn’t Gaddafi though…
No verifiable evidence of Gaddafi slaughtering people but plenty that Americans have been.
I forgot the Cobban link.http://justworldnews.org/archives/004181.html
“my best hope, that this ends up going well.”
Never heard about polishing a turd for eight hours at which time,it’s still a turd.
It’s a slippery slope if it ends tomorrow only because it would encourage other regime changes, maybe a country of the month or something.
Then there the 1,000,000 dead Iraq citizens as to what could possibly go wrong unless we meant “to free the people” from their earthly bounds.
Pacifit ‘just thinking assassination zone’, LOL!
. . . and now it appears the German’s are P.O.’d and pulling their equipment out of NATO. The EU members are very at odds with each other, who controls Italian bases, whether France gets future oil contracts as a bonbon in exchange for war cooperation now. And Gates has irked the UK over the UK’s loose lips about “assasination.” Hillary claims Khadafy and/or aides are looking for a path to safe exile. This may all be hogwash, since it’s on Drudge.
Yet even Drudge occasionally links to a respected news source, which can mislead about Drudge’s otherwise lack of credibility. Whether it’s hype or not this time, I wonder if any of Khadafy’s minions are mindful and figuring they can tough it out and prevail in time. That could make the task harder.
If the exile story is true it could sow useful suspicion and discord in K’s ranks. If it’s untrue, they’ll see it as a story conjured up by a desperate State Dep’t.
Go figure what’s next, or not.
Jeremy Scahill –
A lengthy stalemate serves the interests of the Pentagon just fine. Lots of combat flying hours for the men. Lots of spending to do on fuel and replacement aircraft.
NATO and the US … and various members have rotated leadership in various locations throughout Afghanistan over the past few years, most notably while US leadership was focussed on Iraq. Doesn’t seem to be going very well in Libya, huh.
More kabuki. International North African edition.
Why doesn’t the UN send in the African mediation team? Oh. Wait. I forgot. The UN doesn’t actually do anything anymore.
Ghadafi is a freaking madman. It irks me no end that if it weren’t for the US (and British?) support (meddling) this MADMAN would not be ranting at us all while planes fall out of the sky.
Is there any better argument for the US to stop all this regime change and puppet leader shit? But they won’t …. *sigh*
“responsibility to protect”= making a market in peace ENFORCEMENT
What could possibly go wrong?
A huge problem that I see is that we’re using the UN No Fly Zone as cover to wage a coup, which is definitely not what the No Fly Zone is about…actually that seems counter to the entire purpose of the UN. Taking sides via the UN in a country’s civil war seems like a huge can of worms. I am by no means a defender of Gaddafi, but simply as a matter of a country being sovereign, I think any world leader has a right to defend itself against a coup and the UN shouldn’t be invovled in deciding which coups are good and which coups are bad…how can Obama on one hand condemn Gaddafi for protecting the state from a coup, while on the other hand Obama torturing Manning for alleged treason? This just seems totally muddled since Obama hasn’t been fighting in Libya for a ceasefire, but rather has been fighting for regime change – if Obama was actually fighting for a UN brokered ceasefire, then things wouldn’t be so muddled. This isn’t even including all the other countries that we aren’t involved in their civil wars, which is a whole other area that is also being muddled. I do have to thank the Italians for tipping everyone off that this is about oil contracts – not that those on FDL didn’t think oil was a big part of it.
Like you, I hope this ends up well, but each day seems to bring more confusion.
And, the way we got into this was quite odd. By that, I mean, for days the word was, “We’re not doing it.” Then, one morning, I hear, “In a few hours the UN will vote to impose a no fly zone.”
I mean, you may have disagreed with Bush, but at least he told you well in advance what he was planning on doing. Here, there wasn’t even really a chance to discuss before we were in it.
Here’s my problem with the story. How is it that the story got out? Having a reliable reporter does not guarantee accuracy in reporting unless they actually witnessed the event. The stories are written as if the reporter was on the scene. If that is true, there needs to be some explanation of how a reporter was, as the impression is from the report, at some random village when a plane malfunctioned.
I say this because there is an intense propaganda war going on with at least three parties: the Interim National Council, the international coalition, and the Gaddafi government. And all of them are trying to play the reporters known to be reliable. So the question always is who witnessed this and what is their agenda. The first casualty of war–and all that.
Here ya go, palli; you’ll get a boot outta this, I’d imagine.
I much regret my former hopefulness in this matter. Sometimes thinking the best of our armed forces and of our leader is at the least foolhardy and at the most damaging. Obama has demonstrated himself able to walk and chew very poisonous gum at the same time.
And I am (but shouldn’t be) amazed at the totally incorrect version the mainstream media spun at us all day yesterday.
Warning to all Libyans, stay away from our troops; they’ve got guns and dammit they are going to use them.
I hope that handover …no, I don’t hope any longer.
God bless the Libyans. Have a peaceful reordering of your proud state, and may the forces coming to your assistance create less havoc than Kaddafi.
As for Obama, his imitation of Bush just isn’t funny any longer; it is downright scary. All that remains is one of those carriers with the 200 tomohawks off the deck steaming into San Diego. May, wasn’t it?
yes, scares me… what evil thoughts am I being driven to
It ain’t my dad’s drafted WWII army anymore. A military that condones, trains for and applauds torture is not a proud and just military.
I suspect that the UN Security Council had the opinion that the purpose of this mission was not as much to get Gaddafi to resign but to test the UN Security Council’s resolve to enforce the no-fly zone. It seems that the telephones to the Gaddafi administration still work and there are still Libyan diplomats loyal to Gaddafi available as interlocutors. Given the African Union resolution prior to UN Security Council resolution 1973, this looks like the sort of backtracking the Arab League briefly engaged in.
And the idea that the mission intended “to mediate between President Muammar Gaddafi and pro-democracy protesters fighting to end his 42-year rule.” is much too late to be serious. That could have been done before UN Security Council Resolution 1970 was passed.
If Gaddafi wants mediation, he has a very clear action to take. A real instead of a rhetorical ceasefire. A real honest-to-goodness ceasefire and an authentic willingness to negotiate would flatfoot the international coalition’s momentum if it is a cynical as a lot believe. But Gaddafi is not that sort of a leader. And the UN Security Council has already referred him to the International Criminal Court.
The mystique of “special forces” is primarily mythical. Even the mafia would have difficulty doing a hit job on Gaddafi. Leaving aside the stated (but so far neither proven nor disproven) principle that it’s against US law.
You make some very good points.
This entire operation just seems quite rushed and half-cocked, and now, off the rails.
I might have agreed or disagreed with some operation in the past, but I wasn’t worried about them going totally out of control as I am this one.
The United Nations Participation Act was passed December 1945.
Good catch.
The institutional basis of US national security was dramatically changed between August 1945 and the passage of the National Security Act in 1947.
Those institutions and their legal basis have been outstripped by event, and we now know huge areas in which the current institutions make the US less safe. After over 65 years, it is a time for a major rethinking of these institutions. And most of the implications of rethinking likely point to a substantial downsizing of US national security institutions. Part of that downsizing means a downsizing of executive power with regard to starting wars (or “police actions” or whatever euphemism is used to cover the use of military force).
I have some of the same feelings.
The start of the use of force was rushed into place, and that was part of Gaddafi’s strategy to defend against the UN Security Council resolution. His rhetoric during his counteroffensive against the protesters, now turned rebels, normal war rhetoric used imagery of genocide – killing rats, going house to house in Benghazi. That rhetoric and the fact that Gaddafi’s troops were rapidly moving into place outside Benghazi forced the UN Security Council to make its decision (and even moved Russia and China to abstain).
And on the day that the international coalition to implement the resolution was meeting, Gaddafi’s troops massively shelled Benghazi and tried to have a fait accompli before the international coalition could act. That forced immediate action by the coalition, which means that it was not necessarily well-planned or coordinated.
And more importantly, it opened the door for the US military to bigfoot it and make itself the issue. Footage of the Tomahawk missiles taking off was a huge propaganda mistake; it framed the action in terms of the attacks on Baghdad. The first briefing from the Pentagon added to the PR disaster. The presenting admiral put up an aerial photo of a dual use airfield; at one end of the airfield were hardened hangars for military aircraft. Then, his after-action report was that only those hangars had been attacked, but instead of a bombing assessment after-action photo, he showed a “representation”. Ding. Ding. Ding. Shade of Colin Powell’s mobile bioweapons labs. In the first hours of the mission, the US military destroyed the credibility of their own reports and gave the framing of “same old, same old”. And the more they hog the media spotlight, the more the framing puts it as a US mission not a UN mission.
I worry that like the shooting of protesters at Fallujah in 2003, the training of US military to shoot first and ask questions later might come back to haunt us even if the mission was the right thing to do–and for me the jury is still out on that.
The only spot I might disagree slightly is that earlier on, the rebel forces signaled that they didn’t want any negotiations with Gadaffi, for obvious reasons then: they were winning. But I can’t think that blocking the flights into Tripoli for the purpose signals anything good.
Oh, and concerning the referral of Gadaffi to the Criminal Court: two writers at AJE writing about it thought that it was counter-productive, as it would have signaled to Gadaffi that he wouldn’t ever get out of the nation alive.
My husband has had the same thoughts, Palli, and has to keep examining them. ‘Pacifist’ is an easy word with hard tenets; I don’t think I am, in the end. I know that in certain, very narrow, situations, I could kill. Arrrggh.
Thanks, Tarheel; may I borrow your comment to stick on Gringo’s diary about the Constitutionality of Obama’s Libyan (
Mis)adventure?Please do.
Progressive thinking about national security needs to move from awareness of the military-industrial-complex to the fundamental reform of US national security institutions to meet the current geopolitics of a post-American-empire world. The rest of the world knows that George W. Bush squandered America’s empire. They are beginning to search for ways to manage the truly international security functions that the US was doing unilaterally. And they are not too eager to swap US hegemony for the hegemony of some other country.
Thank you. And yes; in far too many quarters just the notion of the US becoming a member of the ICC turns people purple. “AS IF we should submit…(yada yada)”
So glad to read your thinking, Tarheel. I remember a West Wing episode in which an attorney specializing in Internation Law declared that most of International Law hasn’t been written yet. And the US doesn’t want to hear from others.
Allowing a flight to Tripoli would have effectively broken the no-fly zone and created a precedent for countries friendly to Gaddafi (after all there are many dictators who have been ruling like Gaddafi did) to use “mediation efforts” as cover for materially supporting the regime. That is a risk not a fact. And the UN Security Council was not willing to take that risk.
I do think that the UN Security Council was aware that referring Gaddafi to the ICC would harden his resistance. But they were faced with information that Gaddafi was perpetrating crimes subject to the ICC and the referral was for investigation and gave a year before the prosecutor could act.
It seems that the UN Security Council and the Secretariat seek to make the institution effective in its enforcement so that over time enforcement against heads of state becomes less difficult. By less difficult, I mean that on resolution 1970, Gaddafi would have complied and walked back his repression even if it led to a transfer of power to a new regime. Not necessarily less difficult to conduct regime change.
cregan @ 16 said,
“I mean, you may have disagreed with Bush, but at least he told you well in advance what he was planning on doing. Here, there wasn’t even really a chance to discuss before we were in it.”
Which was exactly the point.
Discussion might have led to congressional intervention or a resounding negative reaction from the citizenry. Can’t have that.
Anyway, a unitary executive will not ask permission to do anything. He’s above the law.
new article up on Ivory Coast:
http://my.firedoglake.com/kspopulist/2011/03/23/msm-finds-ink-for-ivory-coast-but-thats-not-enough/