Libya: Narrowing the options... Who controls the skies?

[Catherina]

Today in London a large gathering of foreign ministers will be attempting to resolve some of the contradictions

The Guardian, Tuesday 29 March 2011

...

Today in London a large gathering of foreign ministers and other representatives will be attempting to resolve some of the contradictions which they themselves have created, while a smaller group of the countries forming the steering committee for what is now a Nato operation will also be meeting. The main issue before them is to decide at what point Nato action ceases to be about protecting civilians from Gaddafi and begins to be about prosecuting a war on behalf of Libyan insurgents who appear unable to take and hold ground on their own.

The rebels have been their own worst enemies in this regard. Three military commanders seem to be functioning independently, if not as rivals, while the regular troops who defected in the west of the country have not been committed to operations in an organised way. Undisciplined charges by pick-up trucks are not a strategy. The political coherence of the National Transitional Council has, meanwhile, reportedly been at times very strained.

Russia, Turkey, and perhaps also Italy and Germany, have made up their minds that the line between civilian protection and regime change has already been crossed. Anglo-French tactics can be criticised, but surely there should be no disagreement that the worst possible outcome in Libya would be partition, with a Gaddafi-held zone holding on for months or years. The objection to the Russian and Turkish positions is that they make such an outcome more likely. The critical question is whether the people of western Libya want Gaddafi or not. If they do not, and that is the way the limited evidence certainly points, then policies like immediately winding down the military effort or facilitating a ceasefire will merely give Gaddafi a second wind, unless there are other, relatively peaceful levers that could then remove him, which seems far from guaranteed.

The emerging compromise may be that for a few more days the current rules of engagement, allowing ground attacks on military assets not directly or actively threatening civilians, will continue in force but then a narrower interpretation will prevail. That gives Nato planes a slender window to tip the military balance further against Gaddafi. Thereafter it may well get much more difficult, and, if it does, some countries may have much to answer for.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/mar/29/libya-narrowing-options-editorial

The war in Libya: who controls the skies?

...

The North Atlantic Council (NAC), Nato's governing body, yesterday issued something called a NAC Execution Directive, which gave the order for a Canadian general, Charles Bouchard, who has been running the no-fly zone since Friday, to assume command of air strikes as well. In fact, Nato sources say that the actual handover of command of this most controversial element of the western role in Libya will not happen for some days. "It should be done by the end of the week," one official said.

...

These operations have been coordinated rather than commanded by the US. In practice, the British and French have been choosing their own targets. For the time being, they can continue to act as the rebels' air force, blowing up pro-Gaddafi forces ahead of the insurgents as they race west along the coastal road.

We do not know what new rules of engagement were agreed in Brussels on Sunday, but it is hard to imagine that the 28 Nato member states, including Turkey and Germany, would have signed off on the very liberal French and British interpretation of the "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in UN security council resolution 1973.

All the signs are that the new rules of engagement will be more restrictive, and not allow Nato pilots to target pro-Gaddafi forces if they do not represent an immediate threat to civilians. Until those rules actually come into operation, the French and British will race to do as much damage as possible to what remains of Gaddafi's military machine.

UPDATE: The Guardian's security editor Richard Norton-Taylor says that British defence officials privately concede that the rules of engagement may be made much more restrictive when Nato takes over. They say Bouchard is expected to give a press conference outlining the new position on Thursday, which may mean he does not actually take command until then.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/julian-borger-global-security-blog/2011/mar/28/libya-nato

[Distant Observer]

1. It is clear to me that some US, French and British killing went outside the "Mandate" and WAR CRIME

CHARGES could be legitimately brought against some of the mass killings from the air.

But, of course, those who have the power make the judgements, so any penalty is unlikely.

[PhillySane]

2. Fooling yourself to believe that

this is anything but a US/British/French war against Gadaffi. What of civilians who are recruited by Gadaffi's forces? Are they not now targets themselves? How do you make a distinction between them and rebels flown in from outside the US? Who are the real civilians? Or does it not matter?

The cloud of war. Pandora's box is open.

[Catherina]

5. I'm reading a lot of pre-invasion information on Libya and it doesn't square

with what the US, the UK and France have bee flooding the media with since.

This is Sarkozy's war. I'm beginning to understand better why Germany refused to leap on his mad bandwagon.

I don't know how many are even recruited. Based on earlier reports I'm finding, the people in the West LIKE him which explains why he was perfectly comfortable arming university students to defend Libya and why, to the rebels' great disappointment, outside of Benghazi and surrounding cities, people didn't rush out into the streets to join them.

This is even more of a mess than I thought last week.

“I never felt in any danger, and I didn't see any violence in Tripoli. It's very much Gaddafi's city, everyone there is loyal to him,” Greenhalgh told CM, speaking from his home on the Wirral . “I really only saw the evidence of what had been happening the night before.”

Brian Greenhalgh FCIOB FRICS, commercial manager for Aeroports de Paris Ingenieurs (ADPI), the project manager and designer for Tripoli's new International airport.

http://construction-manager.co.uk/news/leaving-libya-personal-story-political-crisis/

[joshcryer]

10. Zawiya, Misrata, Zinten, all cities in the west, all rose up against him.

Disinformation continues.

[Karenina]

3. Who controls the skies?

Who controls the ground? Who are these "rebels/freedom fighters/pro-democracy:rofl:" folks anyway and WHO controls them? Tante K. fires her AK47 into the air...

50 years ago I asked, "What do we do with the waste?" Risky bidness, that. Teacher lady was not amused.

If you build a foreign policy based on assumptions of "safety and security" having never properly assessed the risks, the likelihood of a catastrophic meltdown most surely increases.

So far, environmentally we have the Gulf and Fukushima, economically, the "crash" and evisceration of working people, politically, the very sight of Gates denying the possibility of civilian casualties in Libya as his boys issue YET ANOTHER APOLOGY for blowing children away in Afghanistan. And ya know what else? The Pakistani gubmint is compensating victims of a US drone attack!

Who controls the skies, indeed. ;-)

[PhillySane]

4. Do not adjust your TV set!

We control the horizontal. We control the vertical.

[Karenina]

11. For the next 60 minutes...

:rofl: Those were the days, my friend. It was Sci-Fi then. Today it's :rofl: HOLY SHIT!

[PhillySane]

13. Its for Real!

:)

[Catherina]

6. I hope this all ends as quickly and as positively as possible

I don't see much hope of that.

If you build a foreign policy based on assumptions of "safety and security" having never properly assessed the risks, the likelihood of a catastrophic meltdown most surely increases.

Can I borrow that?

[Karenina]

7. It's yours!

And a big THANK YOU for all of your contributions to the discussions! :applause:

[dipsydoodle]

8. Given that the insurgents wear civvies

only the army are not civilians.

Clever stunt that really.

[Hannah Bell]

9. kr

[Starry Messenger]

12. k&r