Military realities bind NATO in continuing Gadhafi fight

[CHIMO]

Source: Saturday's Globe and Mail

NATO has given Canadian Air Force Lieutenant-General Charlie Bouchard the job of running the air war in Libya but more than half of NATO’s 28 nations won’t answer the bugle call. Of the nine countries willing to send warplanes; three – Italy, Spain, Holland – won’t allow them to be used offensively.

Only six – Britain, France, Canada, Belgium, Denmark and Norway – will permit offensive air strikes and none of them have sent the type of warplanes Gen. Bouchard needs most.

To make matters worse, President Barack Obama has ordered America’s military – after launching several hundred cruise missiles and carrying out the bulk of the air strikes during the first week – to end its combat role, leaving Gen. Bouchard in a double bind.

There’s a major disconnect between the political goals – getting rid of Moammar Gadhafi – and the military realities that warplanes for relatively easy and safe high-level bombing don’t match the urgent and tough needs on the ground.



Read more: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/military-realities-bind-nato-in-continuing-gadhafi-fight/article1987764/

---

Without the leader NATO is zilch.

[orangeapple]

1. goddammit

we rushed to war without even the intent to finish it!?!

Apparently it is important enough to do half-ass?

Is our goal another 10 years of 'no fly zone' and occasional bombing thrown in with economic sanctions designed to crush the Libyan population?

[Countdown_3_2_1]

2. YES. This whole thing was half assed from the get go.

The rebels will be crushed and we're not even arming them.
Gadahfi will be triumphant, and he will wreck vengeance on the EU.

I was always against going into this military action...but: If you start something: FINISH IT.

[Kolesar]

3. How much would "the treasury" save if we dismantled NATO?

The Soviets were a moribund threat twenty five years ago. Maybe it's time.

I think "we" were hoping that we would kill Moammar Gadhafi with a bomb. It didn't happen. And the air forces are not the tool to take him out.

[WatsonT]

4. UN supported, international coalition of NATO forces!

That is once again an American-show.

Some allies we have.

If you voted for it you should pay your fair share. If you don't have the equipment then compensate those nations that are contributing financially.

[classysassy]

5. Meddling in the middle east.

Why do the Americans and the Europeans feel free to bomb any Arab country the the UN bring sanctions against but refuse to do anything when ever Israel disregard every sanction brought against Israel?

[classysassy]

6. Before I am accused of being anti Israel

I do support Israel right to exist and I also support the rights of all the states in the area to be free from the aggression of their fellow countries in the middle east.

[TheLastMohican]

7. Colonialism v. 2.0

Only this time the talking heads aka politicians in EU and US are using the nice words like "democracy" and "self-determination" and "rise against a tyrrant".

Sarkozy's days are number, and his Italian pal Berlusconi's too.

I can't believe Obama got involved in this mess, dragged by the "Xena warriors" led primarily by Hillary Clinton. She scares me sometimes, because she completely disregards sovereignty of national states.

[Baclava]

8. "Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's removal is not a specified military objective of the action."

Cameron: Libya UN resolution makes mission 'difficult'

The UK prime minister has said the terms of the UN resolution on Libya are a "restriction" on the coalition powers who have been trying to protect civilians and enforce a no-fly zone.

David Cameron said the UK was not occupying or invading but said these restrictions imposed by the UN made the mission in Libya more difficult.

"It's because we've said we're not going to invade, we're not going to occupy, this is more difficult in many ways, because we can't fully determine the outcome with what we have available."But we're very clear we must stick to the terms of the UN Security Council resolution - and we must keep the support of the Arab world."

The UN resolution authorises "all necessary measures" to protect civilians under threat of attack - short of an occupying force. Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's removal is not a specified military objective of the action.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13107834