Odyssey Dawn: a military operations in Libya thread.

the arguments contenderizer has used in regard to Libya are ready-made stuff that sits on a shelf of well-worn propaganda

man, i'm wrong even when i don't say anything

A thousand apologies, good sir, craving your pardon. 'Twas a brain fart. I meant to say curmudgeon.

Last week was good for some supercilious humor.

http://dickdestiny.com/blog1/2011/05/20/bombing-moes-sitting-ducks/

Juan Cole on Libya (he's more optimistic than some):

People who wonder what the end game in Libya is should consider that the Tripoli government is now offering negotiations with everything on the table (i.e. including the possibility that the Qaddafi family will have to step down). Heavy NATO air strikes on military installations in the capital have upped the ante, as has the rebel defeat of Qaddafi’s forces at Misrata, with UN/ NATO help. Likewise, the International Criminal Court indictment of Qaddafi has further isolated his regime, and there are signs of the African Union backing away from him

i don't have any information to second-guess him, but i have to say his total emotional full-throated support of this whole thing has really made me take what he says with a grain of salt

I'd like to hope he's right, but you're correct that his posts seem to be based largely on emotion

http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/fisk/who-cares-in-the-middle-east-what-obama-says-2290761.html

In the middle of commentator Fisk's Obama denunciations he alleges that Algeria might be providing military aid to Gadaffi:

if Algerian armour is indeed being handed over to Gaddafi to replace the material that has been destroyed in air strikes, it would account for the ridiculously slow progress which the Nato campaign is making against Gaddafi.

Of course, it all depends on whether Bouteflika really controls his army – or whether the Algerian "pouvoir", which includes plenty of secretive and corrupt generals, are doing the deals. Algerian equipment is superior to Gaddafi's and thus for every tank he loses, Ghaddafi might be getting an improved model to replace it. Below Tunisia, Algeria and Libya share a 750-mile desert frontier, an easy access route for weapons to pass across the border

US politics re Libya:

With Moammar Gadhafi still in power and fears of a prolonged stalemate growing, there appears to be little appetite among House members for a full-throated endorsement of U.S. military involvement.

What is the current degree of US involvement, actually?

good question. IS Nato using US aircraft and bombs? Obama dodged questions when he was in the UK re whether the US would provide helicopters or specialty planes that can fly low.

The helicopters they've been arguing about for weeks are due to arrive soon !: British and French ones that is

In Paris, the French Defence Minister, Gerard Longuet, refused to say when the British Apaches and French Tiger helicopters, on warships in the Mediterranean, would be deployed, but added: ''In any case, very rapidly.''

Rebel leaders expect this deployment in the next few days after the peace mission to Tripoli by the South African President, Jacob Zuma, failed to produce Colonel Gaddafi's resignation.

Mr Zuma said Colonel Gaddafi had insisted on remaining in the country and that his personal safety had been ''of concern''.

But the dictator's 41-year rule may be just as threatened by opposition in his own capital as NATO hardware.

http://www.smh.com.au/world/nato-extends-libya-campaign-as-helicopters-move-in-20110601-1fggm.html

nice domain name there

Ha. It's actually Australian-- Sydney Morning Herald

More airstrikes and more defections but Gaddafi's not leaving yet

At this point it's okay to wonder about the constitutionality of all this.

Which constitution?

Re the US constitution, the House GOP leadership defended Obama by blocking a vote on Libya. Also, to play devils advocate here, some say the War Powers Act itself is not constitutional, and Obama has lawyers who will say that this NATO action does not constitute the US engaging in war.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-06-01/u-s-house-puts-off-libya-vote-that-its-sponsor-says-would-pass.html

why wonder? it's not constitutional at all and i haven't seen a single serious argument that it is. obama himself contended prior to his election that presidents have no right to wage war without the consent of congress.

in obama's defense, i guess, presidents have been ignoring this particular aspect of the constitution -- with little to no complaint from congress -- since truman.

Republicans blocking a vote on Libya is not pure altruism on their part. If this adventure goes sour in the public's mind, as they still could, this leaves their own fingerprints off it and only Obama to blame. It also weakens the War Powers Act even further, so future Republican presidents can point to this and claim precedent for ignoring the law whenever they feel like it.

Exactly.

I said "it's okay to wonder" because several passionate supporters of intervention blew their collective gaskets when I hinted as such in March.

since lincoln won the pres-as-writer poll, seems only fitting to cite one of his most OTM moments:

Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him,--"I see no probability of the British invading us"; but he will say to you, "Be silent: I see it, if you don't."

The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood.

it's not like the wisdom was so amazing there tbh. the deal that has settled in modernity is that congress builds a giant military constantly because contracts = jerbs, and then the executive gets to use it whenever he likes.

There's always a pressing need to start a war without a moment's delay, just as soon as the prez makes up his mind. What could be more presidential?

What about "war on terror" attacks on Al Quada in Yemen or other countries around the world (other than Afghanistan or even Pakistan)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/house-rebukes-obama-on-libya-mission-but-does-not-demand-withdrawal/2011/06/03/AGdrK8HH_story.html?hpid=z3

zackly goole, death is our #1 export cept for maybe Hollywood blockbusters

those are also death, i'm assming

-u-

ha

Helicopters!

With the costs of the air campaign mounting, and the stresses growing on air crews, finding a way of breaking the stalemate has become a priority for NATO, and particularly for Britain and France, which are carrying the brunt of the campaign.

Mr. Obama has let NATO allies take the lead in the Libyan operations, an unusual role for them in the history of such operations. The United States’ role has been confined primarily to air refueling, airborne command and control, surveillance and the deployment of missile-carrying drones.

Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard, the Canadian commander who oversees the air campaign from a base in Naples, Italy, issued a statement on Saturday calling the helicopters’ first missions successful and adding: “We will continue to use these assets whenever and wherever needed

The use of helicopters and the latest NATO bombing of Tripoli has not stopped Gaddafi yet:

"Misrata is under heavy shelling ... Gaddafi forces are shelling Misrata from three sides: east, west and south," rebel spokesman Hassan al-Misrati told Reuters from inside the besieged town.

"He has sent thousands of troops from all sides and they are trying to enter the city. They are still outside, though."

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/08/us-libya-idUSTRE7270JP20110608

Financial costs for the operation for NATO countries keeps going up as this drags on. Hilary Clinton though keeps giving speeches saying it is only a matter of time before Gaddafi leaves. And I think the White House is going to actually submit some type of report to the House (though not ask for authority)

Gaddafi is still shelling Misrata no matter what Ms. Clinton thinks

Gates growls:

http://dickdestiny.com/blog1/2011/06/10/complaining-about-the-other-pantywaists/

greenwald on oil interests and their role in the war:

http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/glenn_greenwald/2011/06/11/libya/index.html

^ correct answer = simplest, etc, ad nauseum

all of that stuff is of course true but lol @ UPDATE #1 in which he responds to the complaints of the PEONS:

To clarify what I believe was already clear ... That's not to say that Gaddafi's "resource nationalism" is the only or even overriding motive for the war in Libya. Wars are typically caused by the interests of multiple factions and rarely have just one motive.

oh!

lmao

nice mea culpa

The White House says the act requiring approval by Congress doesn’t apply to the Libya operation because what United States forces are doing there doesn’t amount to “hostilities.”

that's some catch, that Catch-22

While Obama and Boehner flip-flop re the War Powers Act,the AP reports that in Libya

Tunisian army official Mokhtar Ben Nasr said the number of Libyans fleeing has mounted in recent days, with 6,330 Libyan refugees crossing into Tunisia earlier this week. Dozens of Libyan soldiers also have defected to Tunisia by boat, the state news agency there reported Wednesday.

http://globalspin.blogs.time.com/2011/06/20/natos-libya-bombing-error-wont-help-a-flagging-war-effort/

What a mess--NATO bombing errors; stubborn Gaddafi won't leave and won't stop his own ugly killing; Obama won't get Congressional approval.

I wonder if the compromise plan to have elections discussed above can get support from either the rebels or Gaddafi.

surely the first rule of war in the new west is to pick a fight only where you know you can win. the libyan intervention has been 95% misguided from day 1. something seriously wrong if it's down to a 'stubborn' leader who won't do what we want him to do (but we'll forget about what assad is doing).

Doing the bombing from above approach (like in the Clinton 90s) is difficult.

Juan Cole who has supported the effort from the beginning has recently listed 10 things wrong with the operation

http://www.juancole.com/2011/06/top-ten-mistakes-in-the-libya-war.html

what's your view curmudgeon?

I support the intervention but think Obama should have gone to Congress for authorization. I recognize that it is inconsistent to be taking action in Libya but not in Syria (or Bahrain or Yemen) but there seem to be so many elements that factor into those decisions (not all logical). I do not know enough to discuss specifics of the NATO strategy. If you read upthread, you'll see that others think the whole thing is wrong. Glenn Greenwald and others are making that case elsewhere.

Also, Syria is discussed on this other thread:

a thread about the civil unrest in egypt (& elsewhere in 'the region' if necessary)

on its own terms it's not "inconsistent", NATO countries had some chance of knocking off Qdf and/or "protecting civilians" by intervening in libya and don't have that chance in syria at all