Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan Tuesday called for embattled Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi to step down ...

Several thousand people attended the funeral in Tripoli today of Qaddafi’s son, Saif al-Arab, 29, and three of his grandchildren killed in an April 30 NATO airstrike on the leader’s Bab al-Aziziya compound, the Associated Press reported. Anti-aircraft fire thundered in the background while mourners flashed victory signs and chanted for revenge, the AP said.

A Libya revolution blog

http://www.libyafeb17.com/

Ha, like me it links to lots of articles

here's a good one that's all original, written by a libyan

http://revolutionology.wordpress.com/

The Gaddafi regime committed war crimes against Libyan pro-democracy demonstrations, opening fire "systematically" on peaceful protesters, according to a report issued by the prosecutor for the International Criminal Court (ICC), who will seek arrest warrants against Muammar Gaddafi and two other senior members of his regime later this month.

If the judges grant his request, the question will be who should carry out the arrests. Moreno-Ocampo will say that if the Libyan government fails to act, the security council itself "should evaluate" how to do it. It is unclear whether Russia or China would veto the authorisation of Nato to carry out the arrests. That would most likely involve sending troops into Tripoli.

Have to assume this is coincidental (?) but authorisation to send in troops has been what many Nato members have been looking for since it became clear the rebels weren't up to winning even with air support. Convenient, like.

Hundreds of thousands have fled the violence. The exodus statistics compiled by the United Nations contain all categories of Libyan migrants. UN High Commissioner for Refugees Antonio Guterres on Tuesday called on Western nations to help, with the agency saying 686,422 had left Libya as of May 4, mostly for Egypt and Tunisia.

God forbid Europe allow any refugees to come there

The United States said Thursday that it would try to release some of the more than $30 billion in assets seized from Libya's leader, Moammar Khadafy, as international officials said they would create a fund to give money directly to the Libyan rebels.

And for the first time, Qatar put the question of supplying arms to the rebels on the table, but no agreement was reached

Muamar, The Man Who Would Not Die When the World Told Him To.

And on Saturday, the Gaddafi regime unleashed a salvo of ground-to-ground Grad rockets on towns in Libya's western mountains near the border with Tunisia as it bombed Misrata's fuel depots.

At least nine rebels were killed and 50 wounded in fierce clashes in the northwestern mountain town of Zintan as Gaddafi forces pressed the insurgents on several fronts.

A barrage of shells also struck Wazin, a western mountain town near the border with Tunisia, forcing thousands to flee, while loyalist fighters also attacked the southern oasis towns of Ojla and Jalo, which neighbour oil facilities.

The day before, Gaddafi's forces dropped mines into Misrata's harbour using small helicopters bearing the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, the rebels said.

Amnesty International's senior adviser Donatella Rovera lashed out at the Gaddafi regime, saying the mines do not "distinguish between civilian and military vehicles."

"Such systematic targeting of Misrata's only conduit for humanitarian supplies and for the evacuation of critically ill and wounded patients is nothing short of collective punishment against the city's population," she said.

What I think is that this is going to be long and hard.”

That has proved even more true in Libya, where Mr. Obama reluctantly threw his support behind a NATO-led bombing campaign that has bogged down. Libya has become a major preoccupation for him, necessitating daily meetings, in which officials said he was being briefed on the targets for airstrikes and on diplomatic efforts to pry Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi from power.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/05/12/us/politics/12prexy.html?_r=1&nl=todaysheadlines&emc=tha22

They keep missing him--

TRIPOLI (Reuters) - NATO air strikes hit Muammar Gaddafi's compound on Thursday, hours after the Libyan leader was shown on television for the first time since another aerial attack killed his son nearly two weeks ago.

"I tell the cowardly crusader (NATO) that I live in a place they cannot reach and where you cannot kill me," said the voice, which sounded like Gaddafi's

cowardly crusader

Hmmm, maybe the rebels can't sell oil themselves:

What does seem likely, more than a dozen shipping and sanctions experts have told Reuters, is that the tanker's expensive cargo has been caught in a legal and political limbo created by international sanctions on Libya. Western governments seem happy for the rebels to sell their oil, and a few western companies may even be ready to buy it and ship it out. But the sanctions, which never anticipated the emergence of two Libyas, make that a dangerous gamble.

The ship's fate illustrates the often blunt nature of sanctions regimes. Diplomats and international legal experts who design sanctions often talk about making them "smart" or "targeted," and say they can be used to hurt governments without hitting citizens. But in the case of a country divided, sorting friend from enemy can be next to impossible.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/05/16/us-libya-rebels-ship-idUSTRE74F45U20110516

tomorrow is the 61st day of american involvement - has anything been announced out of the white house re: justification for action past 60 days?

preventing a genocidal massacre in benghazi iirc

Kevin, if you're talking about the War Powers Act, yep--Congress and Obama have failed to follow it.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/death-of-the-war-powers-act/2011/05/17/AF3Jh35G_story.html

In another piece I read, the argument was made that Congress has not demanded that the Act be followed because if the Libya action goes wrong they want to be able to just pin the blame on the White House.

Washington Post--Michael Birnbaum, Published: May 20

TRIPOLI, Libya — The NATO bombardment of Tripoli has forced Moammar Gaddafi into hiding, a spokesman for the bloc said Friday, as Western officials kept up efforts to undermine support for the Libyan leader.
....

Western officials appear to be trying to isolate Gaddafi in the hopes that support for him will eventually melt away at the highest levels of his government. One top official, Shokri Ghanem, head of the National Oil Co., fled the country this week, and the Libyan government says it has been in only intermittent contact with him since.

.....NATO has been dropping leaflets and broadcasting radio messages aimed at government troops, telling them to abandon the fight, Bracken said.

After dropping a couple billion on high-tech warfare, not forgetting to drop those ever-important leaflets btw, we've forced that sucker Koodaffy into hiding! And we now feel bold enough to cherish hopes that support for him will eventually melt away!!

I guess the leaflets weren't enough, now more NATO bombing and maybe helicopters coming soon:

NATO planes carried out bombings early Tuesday in Tripoli in what appeared to be one of the heaviest since its Libyan air campaign began two months ago.

...
Meanwhile, in London the British government said it was considering deploying attack helicopters against targets and forces in Libya.

Armed Forces Minister Nick Harvey said no decision had yet been taken on helicopters, but it was 'among a range of capability options under consideration.'

Media reports had earlier suggested as many as 18 British and French helicopters would be deployed to support rebel forces.

http://www.monstersandcritics.com/news/africa/news/article_1641124.php/Libya-conflicts-Tripoli-airstrikes-reportedly-biggest-yet-of-NATO-campaign

In for a dime, in for a dollar, as they say. Next up, loaning the rebels some heavy tanks and five free lessons.

Pretty soon there will be, as Rumsfeld said of Afghanistan, "nothing left to bomb."

I heard Obama on the radio this morning defending the Libyan approach with words to the effect that while it will take time, NATO will be successful.

All give praise to the healing power of our bombery

The reason they are discussing helicopters is that the bombery just works on the obvious big command centers and in-ground missile launchers, but not on smaller targets. If Gaddafi would just leave, all the bombing could stop.

It is mystifying how the leaders of other nations don't just abdicate when we tell them to!

Yemen too and Syria. And way back when that Hitler guy and others.

Others! Totally, them too!

None of them would go! So, we had no choice.

It was almost as though we ourselves were not making the decisions... Almost as if the hated despot himself were in charge of when bombing began and ended..

I'm sure the Libyan rebels would like to hear you tell them that they're better off with Gaddafi attacking them or starving them, then they are with those imperialist NATO nations trying to bomb Gaddafi. And maybe you'll return to your argument that they should try non-violent protest, and hey the Western powers unfairly meddled in Libya numerous times over the years, and why help Libya but not Syria, etc.

While Gaddafi is in hiding we should rearrange all the buildings, streets and furniture, so that when he comes out he'll be all, like, what happened? Where am I? Then he'll just leave, looking for where we put Libya.

Well we're certainly rearranging a lot of concrete.

curmudgeon do you realize that it's possible to both hate Gaddafi and wish him gone yet also - simultaneously - believe that NATO bombardment of Libya is a tragic mistake?

Where are your comments deriding what Gaddafi is doing in Misrata and elsewhere in Libya now? You're just complaining about NATO bombardment (while weeks ago rebels were complaining that there was not enough NATO bombing attacks).

Maybe I can make a blanket statement that whenever Gaddafi's forces bombard, harrass or kill people in Libya I'm against it. Otherwise I'm going to carry on talking about my own government, the one that claims to represent me.

curmudgeon, way back when, in the mid-1960s, it was self-evident that the Vietnamese people were only hoping for self-determination and the USA was acting as a benevolent (and selflessly generous) force by assisting them in this goal, by defending them from the aggressive terror tactics of the hated Communists.

It was generally agreed that the basic facts of the situation were crystal clear and, given time, the outcome was a foregone conclusion. And while the S. Vietnamese government left something to be desired, as democracy took hold the S. Vietnamese would sort it all out, and flawed as their goverment was, they were undoubtedly 1000 times better than the ruthless murdering Viet Cong or the despot Ho Chi Minh.

The arguments all lined up in favor of military intervention. Distasteful as this solution was, the USA understood that to stand aside would be a political and humanitarian disaster. Only fools thought otherwise.

Of course, Libya isn't Vietnam. I am only pointing out that your lines of argument have been viewed as ironclad in the past, but they proved to be so much hooey when tested by reality.

uh the Cold War overshadowed Vietnam pretty heavily, leaving that out as a major motivator of US foreign policy is sort of o_0

ie, the Vietnamese saw the conflict as a civil war. we did not.

The justifications for the Vietnam War were offered as a smorgasbord of propaganda, from which one might choose those which suited one's tastes. The Domino Theory was certainly on the steam table, and quite a few people helped themseves to it. But all the arguments I listed were also given, and they tended to be prominent in news sources such as Time magazine, that catered to a more liberal audience.

I don't see the analogy. I don't foresee the US getting stuck in an endless war in Libya with Americans soldiers dying to protect a South Vietnamese like government. I also don't see the Libyan rebels versus Gaddafi conflict as like the communist Viet Cong versus the South Vietnamese government.

You're right that there are risks that things can go wrong, and you've earlier suggested that the US should stay out of countries that have not attacked the US, but I would rather take a risk on these type of missions than adopt your isolationist approach (even with the lesson of Viet Nam and other conflicts that have gone wrong).

I'll start entertaining Vietnam analogies when the gov't starts talking about the necessity of escalation. in the meantime, seems like we are making as limited a commitment as possible.

And while there have been some mistakes with the bombing that have had tragic consequences, I have not read about indiscriminate bombing campaigns in Libya that are killing thousands of civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure.

also we haven't flown over the border and bombed Morrocco

one more article of impeachment, plz

I don't see the analogy.

I'll start entertaining Vietnam analogies when...

My point, such as it was, was not that Libya is just like Vietnam and will follow the same course. In an attempt to forestall such a mistaken impression I specifically wrote: "Of course, Libya isn't Vietnam." You may have seen it. If not, eh. Maybe I should have bolded it. My mistake. Sorry.

My point was (and is) that the arguments contenderizer has used in regard to Libya are ready-made stuff that sits on a shelf of well-worn propaganda arguments, designed to justify our getting into war and pacify people's misgivings over what our purposes and goals are. This line of argument should be seen as such when it is trotted out, but people swallow it happily because it goes down so easily.

I am totally unconvinced that the people of Libya are going to benefit from this war, however much this is invoked as the sole purpose of our bombing.

That reminds me, we should bomb the shit out of Morocco. Pre-emptively, of course.

My point was (and is) that the arguments contenderizer has used in regard to Libya are ready-made stuff that sits on a shelf of well-worn propaganda arguments

you could say the same thing about anti-war arguments. this does not invalidate either set of arguments.

TS: Anti-war arguments that point to presnt day death and destruction at a cost of vast sums of money, in pursuit of sketchy and probably chimerical future goals vs. pro-war arguments that point to sketchy and probably chimerical goals to be obtained in some hazy future, but require lots of expensive death and destruction at present time.

(shrugs) we can regard these as equally valid arguments, I suppose.

think you left out the part where the expensive death and destruction happened regardless of whether NATO got involved or not