The Facts Concerning Operation Odyssey Dawn

[Exilednight]

Myth #1: The French are taking the lead.

Fact: The French are not taking the lead, the US is. Stars and Stripes reports that " U.S.-led coalition of warships, submarines and aircraft has begun strikes aimed at key elements of Libya’s integrated air defense systems along the Mediterranean coast, to be followed by the enforcement of a no-fly zone over northern Libya, supported by at least 25 ships, the Pentagon revealed Saturday."

Myth #2: The UN Resolution prevents the use of ground troops.

Fact: The UN Resolution prevents an occupying force from taking hold, but does not prevent the use of ground troops. Actual language of the resolution states that "the Council authorized Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians under threat of attack in the country, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory". As we are often told, this is a president who prides himself on nuance, and this is nuance at its finest. There is a difference between active troops and occupying forces. It might seem like a small matter clarification, but it's a big matter if the need to send in troops arises.

Myth #3: The UN Resolution was passed by a unanimous vote.

Fact: The UN Resolution was passed by no one objecting, but it was not unanimous. There are 15 voting members that sit on the UN Security Council, but only 10 voted. Again, from the UN Resolution: "Adopting resolution 1973 (2011) by a vote of 10 in favour to none against, with 5 abstentions (Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation)".

[jaxx]

1. The facts above seem to be off the wall.

Myth #1....France started bombing with planes before the missiles were launched. The USA was not involved in this first event.

Myth #2....What it says: " … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form
on any part of Libyan territory".
What it means: This is the crucial instruction that Libya should not turn into another Iraq. Another paragraph says the Arab League will be consulted at all times.
http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23933442-un-resolution-authorises-attacks-on-ground-forces.do

Myth #3....Any one of the 5 abstentions could have said no and it would have been finished. They did not.

[Exilednight]

2. None of what you posted discredits anything I posted.

This is a US led attack.

There is no language that prevents the use of ground forces.

5 abstentions are not a unanimous vote.

[jaxx]

5. They did.

This is not a US led attack, the US was one of the last to agree.
The language precisely says " … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".
10 were unanimous, 5 abstained, therefore the 10 voting were unanimous.

[Exilednight]

8. Ok, let's go over this one more time.

Jaxx: This is not a US led attack, the US was one of the last to agree

Pentagon: WASHINGTON – A U.S.-led coalition of warships, submarines and aircraft has begun strikes aimed at key elements of Libya’s integrated air defense systems along the Mediterranean coast, to be followed by the enforcement of a no-fly zone over northern Libya, supported by at least 25 ships, the Pentagon revealed Saturday.

Jaxx: The language precisely says " … while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory".

Occupation is not the same as active ground forces.

Jaxx: 10 were unanimous, 5 abstained, therefore the 10 voting were unanimous

15-10=5 who did not vote. Unanimous is a full 15 votes for. As I stated earlier, China is on record as being against the attacks, but for whatever reason only known to them, they decided to not vote.

[bvar22]

9. It is that simple.

Exilednight wins this round.

It is very hard to get around a direct quote from the Pentagon:

"Pentagon: WASHINGTON – A U.S.-led coalition of warships, submarines and aircraft has begun strikes..."

I am curious WHY is is SO important to some that this be labeled as something the French did?
In their hearts, they know it is something bad?

[vaberella]

3. In response to a few of your points...with a bit of clarification.

1. First off, this IS led by the French.

The entire action and the push to address the UN was started and pushed by France. Where are you getting this idea that it's the US. The missiles was led by BOTH the US and the British. I'm tired of this crap that it's the US. It's not just us. It's a mixture of both the Brits and the US.

France’s Operation Harmattan

The undisputed leader of the coalition has one of the largest battle groups in the region. Currently France is fielding the Charles de Gaulle super carrier, the Tonnerre and Mistral amphibious assault helicopter carriers, two frigates Jean Bart and Tourville and the destroyer Forbin. Along with this armada are a fuel and supply ship as well as an attack submarine.

It is now known that France initiated the attacks on Benghazi using 8 of her dedicated 20 Rafale fighters, 4 Mirage 2000s, 6 KC-135 tankers and 1 E-3F AWACS aircraft. Along with British and American submarines and surface ships her air force launched the French built Apache Cruise Missile at multiple Libyan targets. France 24 TV reported on March 20, 2011 that “… bombs were dropped near…Gaddafi's Tripoli headquarters,” which held to President Sarkozy’s threat. "There is still time for Colonel Gaddafi to avoid the worst…”

Read more at Suite101: Stormshadow & Tomahawk Cruise Missiles Initiate US Odyssey Dawn

http://www.suite101.com/content/stormshadow--tomahawk-cruise-missiles-initiate-us-odyssey-dawn-a360435#ixzz1H8na6vvY

http://www.suite101.com/content/stormshadow--tomahawk-cruise-missiles-initiate-us-odyssey-dawn-a360435

U.S. and British ships pounded Libya with precision missiles early Sunday in the broadest international military effort since the Iraq war, while Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi vowed to arm citizens to resist the attacks.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/03/20/libya-attacks.html


2. You are right on this account....However, the U.S. will NOT use ground troops.

I don't know anyone who has said that the UN resolution says there is no ground troops. You talk about Obama using nuance. You're doing you're fair share of this. Look, this is not unclear No one has stated that the UN resolution doesn't permit ground troops. Or I have yet to hear this. We have heard from the President and he has stated very clearly there will be no US ground troops in Libya. He clearly stated this. Don't twist the issue here. I don't know what you're reading. But I have not read anything of the myths you try to dispel with a bit of misinformation of your own. So I'm about to provide a bit....with links.

I also want to be clear about what we will not be doing. The United States is not going to deploy ground troops into Libya.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x632398

Obama: U.S. will not send ground troops to Libya
President says U.S., allies had no choice but to launch limited military operations against Gadhafi forces

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2011/03/19/libya_obama_military_intervention

3. As far as the UN resolution---you are correct. But the absentees did not vote though. I don't know if we can count them. This is more of a case about semantics than anything else. Ultimately...all those that voted---are nations who were considered present during the vote and put in a unanimous stance on it. Those who did not vote---were not against the vote---they just did not take the step and as such were not counted for the vote.

[jefferson_dem]

4. Ace rebuttal.

vaberella wins this round. :thumbsup:

[brentspeak]

12. You need to repeat that a few more times so that dumb, gullible people will actually believe you

As today's corporate "message control" PR firms will tell you, repetition is the key.

How are you going to manipulate the sheep out there if you simply state your blanket "yeah! vabrella wins the round, dude!" just once? Repeat, wash, rinse, and repeat.

[jefferson_dem]

15. actually, I'm hoping you can dust off some obscure unrelated editorial from 2008...

that may shed some light on the subject. For now, ill reserve judgment.

[Buzz Clik]

6. A good start to a Sunday morning. +1

[Exilednight]

7. It's the Pentagon that says it is a US led attack.

WASHINGTON – A U.S.-led coalition of warships, submarines and aircraft has begun strikes aimed at key elements of Libya’s integrated air defense systems along the Mediterranean coast, to be followed by the enforcement of a no-fly zone over northern Libya, supported by at least 25 ships, the Pentagon revealed Saturday.

What you posted on the subject wasn't even from a news site, it was a blog.

Obama also stated in earlier remarks that we he was against a NFZ, but here we are. In another thread you even acknowledged that facts on the ground could make him change his mind.


10 out of 15 votes is not unanimous. China is on record as being against the actions taken. They could of vetoed, but for whatever reason only known to them, they didn't. I do find it odd that India made a statement in support of action, but abstained from voting.

[vaberella]

10. In actuality the Pentagon was laying out it's position for Odyssey Dawn.

It was France and Britain who wrote the Resolution. Another several article states it was an "EU-Led coalition"(here:http://euobserver.com/9/32025). However, this is mainly a France led coalition. The French and most of Europe have ties directly to Libya (through oil) and it would be in their interest to have the situation amended as soon as possible. So this is directly tied to an European initiative and not an US one. We have no ties to them, but we are part of the UN and we also are seen as a leading body in fighting terror (although I find this last part a sort of pour choice of words).

Links below of less "blog" related articles in who is in charge or led this push in the UN.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

France led coalition air strike on Libya, attacking at least four tanks owned by the security forces pro-Gaddafi.

Meanwhile, more than 110 Tomahawk missiles fired from warships and submarines the U.S. and the UK, targeting about 20 targets and air defense missiles in the western part of Libya this country. Pentagon officials, according to William Gortney in a briefing Saturday afternoon.
http://www.allvoices.com/contributed-news/8526184-violence-in-libya-coalition-fighter-planes-attacked-targets-in-libya

Britain and France have made the most aggressive calls among western powers for a no-fly zone to hamper Col. Gaddafi’s offensive. The United States has said it is studying the possibility while warning of the major military operation it would entail.

The UN Security Council unanimously passed sanctions against the Gaddafi regime and ordered a crimes against humanity investigation on February 26. Any new move toward military action is likely to face tough resistance from China, Russia and other members of the 15 however.
http://www.nationalpost.com/news/world/Britain+France+push+Libyan+zone+There+feeling+urgency/4396594/story.html

Britain and France are drafting a UN Security Council resolution to authorise a no-fly zone over Libya, a move that would require military intervention in case the Gaddafi regime does not step down soon. Nato meanwhile has put its surveillance planes on 24-hour alert.

"We are working closely with partners on a contingency basis on elements of a resolution on a no-fly zone, making clear the need for regional support, a clear trigger for such a resolution and an appropriate legal basis," British foreign minister William Hague said in the Parliament on Monday (7 March).

A military option against Libya is still 'on the table'

France is also co-writing the draft resolution, in close consultation with Germany and the US.

"Assuming that the fighting becomes more lethal, we must prepare to respond. That's why we accepted the no-fly zone plan over Libya," French foreign minister Alain Juppe said over the week-end in Cairo.
http://euobserver.com/892/31940

France will step up its efforts to persuade world powers to impose a no-fly zone over Libya.France is hosting a G8 meeting to discuss the conflict between Gaddafi and rebel forces seeking to overthrow him.
By FRANCE 24
http://www.france24.com/en/20110314-france-push-no-fly-zone-g8-meeting-unrest-libya

France pressured G8 foreign ministers on Monday to agree action on Libya and back its efforts to speed up a U.N. Security Council decision on imposing a no-fly zone in Libya sought by anti-Gaddafi rebels.

Libya was the main issue in talks between President Nicolas Sarkozy and Group of Eight foreign ministers including U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ahead of a formal dinner to kick off the first gathering of France's G8 presidency.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/14/us-france-g-idUSTRE72D41E20110314

France and Britain were working on Wednesday to persuade other members of the UN Security Council to back a resolution aimed at stopping Muammer Gaddafi’s jets from bombing civilians.

With Russia and Germany still expressing doubts, Alain Juppé, French foreign minister, said that several Arab countries had pledged to participate in possible military action in the north African country.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ef918ac4-4fd0-11e0-a37e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1H9CHGgOK

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope these articles clarify this idea that it was a US led coalition. No it's not. This was pushed and prodded by the French and we are working with them along with a good portion of Europe. This includes Spain, Greece, and Italy. So is the Pentagon grandstanding---a bit. Not to mention they're purpose is to make our role be seen as an important part of the entire movement. However, the information is out there and the history of how this went about in the UN is clearly stated. So to push this meme that it's a US-Led coalition is not true. The Pentagon clearly said that they are on the "leading edge" that is part of a coalition and the US coalition leader will defer power to the International one in the coming days. That is why each nation has a separate name for the mission and they are each describing their key points in this. If this was US-led we'd have one name. We don't.

As far as the Pentagon statement. They are one of the "leading edge" and they stated several times they are part of a coalition--and they're position is going to be supportive. The US coalition leader will be defaulting power to the international coalition leader in the coming days.

Pentagon statement (transcript by me):

As you know we are on the leading edge on the Coalition military operation's designed to enforce United Nation Security Council's resolution 1973 in Libya. The goals of these initial operations are two-fold, first - to prevent further attacks by regime forces on Libyan citizens and opposition groups, especially in and around Benghazi. And secondly to degrade the regime's capability to resist the NFZ, that we're implementing through that UN resolution. Today and earlier this afternoon, the 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles fired from US and British ships and submarines struck more than 20 integrated air systems and other air defense facilities ashore. On the slide to my left...back one slide, please...on the slide to my left you can see the rough locations of where the military *unclear* that was struck. You will notice that most of them, are on or near the coast. A fact, which made their destruction vital to the enforcement of the NFZ. Since so much of the air activity we have seen and so much of the regime's military efforts have been in this part of the country. These strikes were carefully coordinated with our coalition partners. The targets themselves were selected based on a collective assessment, that these sites either cause a direct threat to coalition pilots or through use by the regime pose a direct threat to the people of Libya. Because it is night over there, it will be sometime before we have a complete picture of these strikes. I want to stress however that this is just a first phase of what will likely be a multi-phase military operation designed to enforce the United Nations resolution and deny the Libyan regime the ability to use force against it's own people. This is an international effort, urged by the Libyan people themselves and other Arab nations. We are joined by several other Allied partners and are committed to supporting their efforts. Indeed, we continue to receive commitments of support, participation, and leadership from both Arab and European partners. In these early days these operations will be under the operational command of General Durham commander of US Africa command. And the commander of the joint task force Odyssey Dawn, which is the name of this operation, is Admiral Sam Locklear who is aboard the USS Mount Whitney in the Mediterranean. We anticipate the eventual transition of leadership to a coalition commander in the coming days. That said, the US military has and will continue to use our unique capabilities to create the conditions from which we and our partners can best enforce the full measure of the UN mandate. Our mission right now is to shape the battle space in such a way that our partners may take the lead in both execute and execution. As the President has said, we are not going to use force to go well defined goals specifically for the protection of civilians in Libya.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12797728

So to say we're leading...it's not really the case. We're working together and definitely the push has come from our allied forces in Europe. This is a collective measure at the urgency of our European and Arab partners. So there was a bit of nitpicking and interpretation in the words of the Pentagon, and I find intentional misinterpretation. I'm not trying to marginalize US involvement. Obviously we're involved. But to say we're the leaders and the coalition is led by us. Is false. We have our own forces that are being led by our people. As do each nation---if the names of the mission for each nation is different. And it would seem as based on the words of the Pentagon that our own leadership will fall on an "international commander" in respects to what is to be done. So no...this is not US-led as the articles you mention state. It's more than that if the words of the Pentagon are kept in context.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hope the information above is more sufficient the blog entry which you dismissed.

I have a question about this Obama said he was against NFZ. Did he say that or say that they did not take a position as to how he feels about the NFZ's. From what I can gather they had never made a clear decision if they were against it or not. They didn't want to be dragged into this, but when a man starts bombing his---some hands are pushed. And as figure on a UN table, I can see the agreement on this because it is something Obama is standing against---mistreatment of citizens.

Most definitely, I still have yet to deny that as things change so do people. But at the moment things are still on that level---we are not sending in troops and we are not swaying the way this movement will go--we are making a move to stop the killings. If there will be ground troops it would seem that they are coming from France, UK and a few of the other European and Arab nations. However, Obama is committed to no ground troops. I again was looking for the other thread where you mention Obama says NFZ. However, in my search on the net for articles referencing that....I have yet to find anything. I have articles stating the US has not made a strong comment against anything and they are willing to hear out what the UN has to say although they are not keen on NFZ. So if you can pass that along that would be helpful.

However, if I find that the article is also spinning as the article you posted above did on the words of the Pentagon---I'll have to say that Obama didn't change his mind on anything---even if I recognize that sometimes things change depending on how a mission goes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Actually China is not on record of being against anything unless they voted against it. If they did not bother to vote--they aren't on record for doing anything---except for looking out of their self-interests. Since they're the other nation next to France that purchases most of it's oil from Libya. China doesn't get involved in things if it doesn't work out. When they voted then they'd be against.

Sorry to say...from what I can see of unanimous is when people declare themselves absent then they are not voting and they're votes don't count. So if they sat there and said NO! Then it would not be unanimous. For all present, it was a unanimous position. Once again, this is nit-picking and semantics. And falls into the silly and ridiculous. You're pushing a weak meme.

[Exilednight]

11. Let's take a look at what we are saying at home

WaPo: But her modest words belied the far larger role the United States played as international forces began an open-ended assault on Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi’s military capabilities. U.S. warships fired more than 110 Tomahawk missiles into Libyan territory to disable air-defense systems. And the French and British warplanes that began to enforce the emerging no-fly zone operate under U.S. command.

Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, director of the Joint Staff, described the U.S. role to reporters at the Pentagon: “We are on the leading edge of a coalition military operation.”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/us-actions-may-speak-louder-than-words/2011/03/19/ABVWsZx_story.html?hpid=z3

NY Times: But the Pentagon said that American forces took the lead in the initial campaign to knock out Libya’s air defense systems, firing volley after volley of Tomahawk missiles from nearby ships against missile, radar and communications centers around Tripoli, the capital, and the western cities of Misurata and Surt.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/21/world/africa/21libya.html?_r=1&hp

Are you saying that the Pentagon is lying to us when they say the US is in charge and leading this attack?

[vaberella]

13. Did you bother to read my post?

I actually quoted the ENTIRE statement given by Vice Admiral Bill Gortney. And as for whatever the NY Times are saying...that is not what I have from Gortney's statement which I provided in my text. I even gave link to the video---did you watch it? If you didn't read the text.

The NYTimes is basically sensationalizing and not clearly laying out exactly what was said. Which as I stated, I provided a link for. And I said when taking VA Gortney's statement in CONTEXT----which you again decided to ignore. He clearly says this is a coalition effort. And he is speaking from the side of American forces. And how they are organizing and LEADING. But this is how THE US IS LEADING. Because well he's representing the US intention.

I gave several links---showing that it was not even the US who wrote the resolution. That was written by France and Britain. Not the US. That means the US was not leading on the resolution and in effect this mission. We are supporters and we are stating, or the Pentagon is stating the role or the leadership role based off of our own UNIQUE CAPABILITIES (as stated by the Gortney).

So I find most of the statements in the newspapers are grandstanding and misconstruing the context of what Gortney said in his statement. We are a working coalition but it was definitely the EU who pushed the initiative. In regards to the air missile attacks it is the US and UK who worked together and Gortney said this along side other reporters who are telling the full truth.

You post this post without even bother reading my post obviously. Since I even bloody wrote out Gortney's statement.

Edited to add this: Reiterating exactly what Gortney said---Admiral Mike Mullen states the same...we are leading in the coalition along with other nations and will give our leadrship stance over in the coming days oto an international body---but it was the French who started this..
http://abcnews.go.com/ThisWeek/video/interview-adm-mike-mullen-chairman-joint-chiefs-staff-military-operations-libya-gadhafi-politics-13178798

[Amonester]

20. Right, the Pentagon (ah-umm) never LIED to anyone.

RRRRRRight!

p.s. Where have you been in the past... uh... 7 decades?!?

[Mimosa]

18. If the French 'lead' attacks, deaths are OK. USA followed French into Vietnam, too. n/t

[vaberella]

19. You're making absolutely no sense.

Secondly, this situation is nothing like Vietnam to even compare it.

[BklnDem75]

14. The fails concerning your post

Fail #1 - It started just hours after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met with officials from 21 nations at a summit in Paris. Earlier Saturday, French war planes attacked Libyan positions around Benghazi, where Gadhafi had continued to pound rebel forces despite calling for a cease-fire.

http://www.stripes.com/news/u-s-aircraft-targeting-ground-forces-air-defenses-in-libya-1.138336?localLinksEnabled=false

Fail #2 - Unanimity may be assumed explicitly after a unanimous vote or implicitly by a lack of objections. 10 in favor, 0 against, 5 abstentions still means 10-0.

[AtomicKitten]

16. It's a democratic majority rules.

Amazingly Russia and China chose to abstain rather than veto.

[Mimosa]

17. Operation Odyssey Dawn? Is that for real?

What a cute name. Makes me think of unicorns, rainbows and other fantasies.