The Non-War Illusion

NATO air strike on Libya / USA Watchdog image

Greg Hunter
USA Watchdog

The President and his supporters are going to great lengths to make it appear the military operation in Libya is not a war.  Deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes called the NATO bombing in Libya “kinetic military action,” but not war. President Obama is also going out of his way to send the message that this is not an American led operation.  A week ago, in a nation-wide address, Mr. Obama said he was handing over control to our European allies,“. . . because of this transition to a broader NATO based coalition the risks and cost of this operation to our military and American taxpayers will be reduced significantly.” I don’t see how Mr. Obama knows how much this will reduce the cost of this war if there is no clear plan or goal.

The Obama administration doesn’t even know who they are helping to unseat Gadhafi in the Libya War.  The President’s own former national security advisor, General Jim Jones, said yesterday, “We don’t know exactly who the opposition is.” General Jones appeared on ABC’s “This Week” with Christiane Amanpour.  She said, “The United States is making a great fanfare about now giving over to NATO, but you are a former NATO commander.  NATO for all intents and purposes is an American organization.  It’s run by an American commander, the chain of command is American, the biggest command and control and resources are American.  This is still an American led operation, right?” And sticking to the Obama administration script, General Jones replied, “I’m not sure I agree with that. . . in the sorties that are being flown now . . . it’s roughly 50/50 and it’s going to go down to where the Americans are going to be supporting and reconnaissance, search and rescue, intelligence and refueling and things like that.” (Click here to see the complete ABC Amanpour interview.)

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Libya more 'vital' to Europe than US: Obama ex-advisor

Robert Gates: Libya is "not a vital interest (to the United States) in the sense that it affects the vital security of the nation," and "It is more in the vital interest of Europeans... when you consider the effects of massive immigration, the effects of terror, the oil market."

Dees Illustration

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The Libya endgame is more "vital" to Europe than the United States, a former White House adviser said Sunday, and urged Arab and African allies to step up as Washington slims its role in the conflict.

Retired general James Jones, who until last October served as President Barack Obama's national security adviser, acknowledged on Sunday talk shows that strongman Moamer Kadhafi's ouster was the ultimate goal in the military campaign, but said there was little clarity on how that will be accomplished.

With the UN-approved military strikes against Kadhafi's forces in their third week, the Pentagon has stepped back from a leadership role in the air campaign, stressing it does not want to engage in yet another major war.
Libya is "not a vital interest (to the United States) in the sense that it affects the vital security of the nation," he told ABC News program "This Week."

"It is more in the vital interest of Europeans... when you consider the effects of massive immigration, the effects of terror, the oil market."

European countries, led by Italy, France and Germany, are the top consumers of Libyan crude, and total Libyan output amounts to less than two percent of world production.

A US-led coalition launched the first air strikes against Libya, but NATO began to take command of the air bombing operations last Wednesday.

"What we're doing here is making sure that our allies also take on their share of responsibilities, which they are," Jones told CNN's "State of the Union" program.

He said the United States was still flying "about 50 percent of the missions," but mostly in support roles such as search and rescue and refueling.

The Arab world and Africa, players who "have much more influence on Kadhafi than we do," must now step up, said Jones, who praised the involvement of nations such as Qatar, the first Arab state to fly sorties over Libya to enforce a no-fly zone.

Some Arab nations have been targeted for criticism for standing on the sidelines in the Libya crisis.

"The participation of the Arab League in this mission I think is hugely important, and the African Union has to step up also. This is their neighborhood, and they need to play a major role in how this is going to work out," Jones said.

While Washington has insisted its involvement in Libya, where Kadhafi forces were threatening a bloodbath in rebel-held eastern cities, was meant to avert a humanitarian disaster, Jones said the true goal was the ouster of Kadhafi.

Exactly how that is accomplished has been a point of debate, and Jones appeared to reflect the growing frustration over the best way to achieve such a goal.

"We know that the ultimate -- the end state -- is to have regime change in Libya. And how you get there from where we are now... without the partitioning of Libya, without Kadhafi staying in power for a long period of time, that is the problem," he told CNN.

"But unfortunately, most people want perfect clarity in a situation where clarity doesn't exist."

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

What’s the difference between Obama’s Libyan war and neoconservatism?

David Rieff
The New Republic

Well, that was quick! It usually takes some time for the gap between how a White House justifies a military adventure to the public, and the reality of what is really going on to be revealed. It took the fall of Saddam Hussein for the Bush administration’s pretext for war—the threat of weapons of mass destruction—to be shown up as a fabrication. But from President Obama’s televised address on the evening of March 29, in which he claimed that the intervention in Libya was not about regime change, to the Reuters story revealing that he had signed an order allowing covert U.S. operations in Libya at least a week before the speech, and possibly longer, took—what?—24 hours. And so in we go to Libya, as both neoconservatives and liberal interventionists have been pressing for all along.

In his speech, the president insisted that there was no comparison between Iraq and Libya, and that broadening the U.S. military mission “to include regime change would be a mistake.” In reality, of course, that is exactly what Washington has done. President Obama made much of U.N. sanction and the multinational nature of the no-fly zone, and boasted that the United States had now handed over the lead role to our “allies and partners in NATO.” But this is disingenuous nonsense. From a military perspective, NATO without U.S. military assets is not a particularly redoubtable force. It is true that, politically, the French government pressed hard for more aggressive military moves to support the Libyan insurgency. But despite President Obama’s assertions to the contrary, the overwhelming preponderance of bombs, missiles, and bullets fired at Colonel Qaddafi’s forces have been from U.S. ships and aircraft.

Read Full Article

RELATED ARTICLE:
Liberals Willing to Trade Blood for Oil Under Obama

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Obama to address nation on Libya strategy

Obama will speak to the nation at 7:30 pm (2320 GMT)
© AFP/File Yuri Cortez

AFP

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President Barack Obama will address the nation about his Libya strategy Monday, the White House announced, as coalition forces launched fresh air strikes against the Libyan regime's forces.

The announcement came as allied warplanes carried out raids late Friday on the town of Zliten, 160 kilometres (100 miles) east of Tripoli, and in the western el Watiya region, Libyan state television reported.

A military site in Tripoli's eastern Tajura suburb was in flames after three major explosions rocked the district.

Obama will speak to the nation from the National Defense University in Washington at 7:30 pm (2320 GMT), said the White House.
He will update Americans on the campaign so far, on plans to turn over control to NATO, and "our policy going forward", the statement added.


On Friday, the president briefed key congressional leaders about the operation.

The announcement came amid growing complaints that Obama has failed to clearly explain US goals and strategy in the latest US military engagement in the Muslim world.

 Top lawmakers attending Friday's -- session either in person or by telephone -- included Republican House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner; Majority leader Eric Cantor; and Nancy Pelosi, the chamber's Democratic leader.

John Kerry, chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and Republican Senate veterans Richard Lugar and John McCain also took part in the president's briefing from the secure White House Situation Room.

White House spokesman Jay Carney earlier said Obama wanted to hear the lawmakers' views on the combat mission.

Boehner's spokesman Michael Steel said the speaker appreciated the update but "still believes much more needs to be done by the administration to provide clarity, particularly to the American people, on the military objective in Libya (and) America's role."

Earlier this week Boehner wrote asking Obama to explain in detail his Libya strategy, notably whether Libyan leader Moamer Kadhafi could be allowed to stay in power.

Other members of Congress have warned about the cost of the operation at a time when the United States is still engaged in military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan, and is facing huge budget deficits.

The White House has rejected claims it has insufficiently consulted Congress on the Libyan operation. Under the US Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war.

Carney said that if Obama had waited for lawmakers to return from a recess next week, events could have overtaken plans for a no-fly zone and many civilians could have been killed in the rebel-held city of Benghazi.

"There was an urgency to act here," said Carney.

"Had (Obama) waited for Congress to come back, had he taken more time to debate and consult on this issue, I think there is very little doubt that Benghazi would have fallen and many people (would have) died."

Lawmakers are not due to return from a recess devoted to constituent work until next week.

The White House also insisted Friday that NATO had indeed reached a political agreement to assume full control over all military operations from the coalition attacking Kadhafi's forces.

While NATO sources had said earlier that the western alliance was still working on some aspects of the mission, Washington said late Thursday a deal had been done on the divisive diplomatic issue.

Final "military planning" was underway on the full transfer of authority and would be complete within days, said Carney.

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license 

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

NATO allies eye compromise on Libya command

French jets launched the first salvos in the campaign 
© AFP Stephan Agostini

AFP

BRUSSELS (AFP) - NATO on Wednesday debated whether the alliance should join the no-fly zone in Libya, as Western allies sought to overcome divisions over giving the military organisation control of operations.

France has resisted giving NATO command of the international campaign, warning that running operations under the Western alliance's flag could alienate Arab nations that it wants to bring into the action.

After days of sometimes heated debate, NATO ambassadors were holding a new round of talks on Wednesday on whether to join the coalition that has enforced the no-fly zone over Libya.

"They will discuss everything that is necessary to implement a no-fly zone," a NATO official said.

NATO members France, Britain and the United States have led the action in Libya, conducting air strikes and launching sea-based missiles against Moamer Kadhafi's regime.
But several NATO allies taking part have called for control to be handed to the 28-nation military organisation.

They would also have to overcome deep reservations from Turkey, NATO's sole predominantly Muslim member and a key player in the Middle East, which has slammed the air strikes.

Eager to hand over the lead for the mission to someone else, the United States said on Tuesday that the US, French and British leaders had all agreed that NATO should play a "key role" in the future command structure.

An arrangement proposed by France would give a special committee of foreign ministers from the international coalition political control of the mission, with Arab participation.

Such a committee could take over the role of NATO's decision-making body, the North Atlantic Council, leaving out NATO members opposed to the air strikes such as Turkey.

"It would avoid putting countries that refuse to take part in the operations in an embarrassing situation," leading French security analyst Francois Heisbourg told AFP.

NATO could then be left with the task of running day-to-day operations, Heisbourg said, although he stressed that the allies still need to clarify the details of the proposal.

A French diplomatic source said the no-fly operations, and an arms embargo that NATO agreed to enforce, could be run out of NATO's naval base in Naples, Italy.

"We are confident that we will be able to work out an effective mechanism that takes advantage of the practical capacities that NATO can bring to bear," said a senior US administration official.

This mechanism would also make clear "that NATO is only a part of this effort and it does involve a wider coalition which already involves some Arab participation and I believe is going to involve wider Arab participation in the coming days," the official said.

 US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton told ABC News in an interview that the discussions were "moving forward in the right direction, and we will have what we need in the next few days."

"Those who are members of NATO want to see a role for NATO," she explained. "But we also want to integrate our other partners. We don't want those who are not in NATO to feel that they're on the outside looking in."

French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe justified France's refusal to let NATO run the show, saying that "Arab nations do not want an operation under the NATO flag."

Heisbourg said the French fears were well-founded.

"The French are right to warn that the symbolic and political weight of NATO in political control of this campaign would be very badly seen in the Arab world," he said.

"NATO is the institutional incarnation of the West," Heisbourg said. "There's nothing more Western than NATO."

© AFP -- Published at Activist Post with license

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner

Who's in charge? Germans pull forces out of NATO as Libyan coalition falls apart

Anthony Freda Illustration

Daily Mail

• Tensions with Britain as Gates rebukes UK government over suggestion Gaddafi could be assassinated
• French propose a new political 'committee' to oversee operations
• Germany pulls equipment out of NATO coalition over disagreement over campaign's direction
• Italians accuse French of backing NATO in exchange for oil contracts
• No-fly zone called into question after first wave of strikes 'neutralises' Libyan military machine
• U.K. ministers say war could last '30 years'
• Italy to 'take back control' of bases used by allies unless NATO leadership put in charge of the mission
• Russians tell U.S. to stop bombing in order to protect civilians - calls bombing a 'crusade'

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.

A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.

The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.

Read Full Article

Enter your email address to subscribe to our newsletter:


Delivered by FeedBurner