• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Turmoil in Libya (2011) and post-Gaddafi blowback

Latest on the Turks (from the U.S. President)....
The President spoke yesterday evening with Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan of Turkey to continue the two leaders’ consultations on the situation in Libya.  The President expressed appreciation for Turkey’s ongoing humanitarian efforts in Libya, including its assistance in facilitating the release and safe passage to Tunisia of four New York Times journalists who had been detained in Libyan custody.  The President and the Prime Minister reaffirmed their support for the full implementation of United Nations Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973, in order to protect the Libyan people. The leaders agreed that this will require a broad-based international effort, including Arab states, to implement and enforce the UN resolutions, based on national contributions and enabled by NATO’s unique multinational command and control capabilities to ensure maximum effectiveness.  They underscored their shared commitment to the goal of helping provide the Libyan people an opportunity to transform their country, by installing a democratic system that respects the people’s will.
.... and the French/Brits on who could run the show how:
France has proposed that a new political steering committee outside Nato be responsible for overseeing military operations over Libya.

The proposal comes just a day after Prime Minister David Cameron told the House of Commons that Nato would be in charge of enforcing UN Security Council resolution 1973.

But on Tuesday Nato secretary general Anders Fogh Rasmussen said that it would only "help enforce" the no-fly zone, not lead it.

French Foreign Minister Alain Jupe said the new body would bring together foreign ministers of participating states - as well as the Arab League.

It is expected to meet in the coming days, either in Brussels, London or Paris.

Mr Jupe said "not all members of the military coalition are members of Nato and this is therefore not a Nato operation."

The French announcement came after Mr Cameron's spokesman hinted at a compromise over control, saying: "We the Government want to see the machinery of Nato used."

Sky News defence correspondent Niall Paterson said: "Nato will coordinate what goes on, tactically, on the ground while there will be a political convening body above that." ....
What could go wrong?
 
More caution:

Derek Burney - Libya: Why are We Involved?
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=151

We have jumped into Libya with our eyes wide open but does anyone know where it will lead or why Canada is so directly engaged? The emotions and humanitarian instincts to do “something” are understandable but so, too, are arguments advocating prudence.

After weeks of deliberation, the UN Security Council adopted a resolution sanctioning a “No-Fly” zone and all necessary means to “protect civilians” – a fine euphemism that, at least initially, gained the endorsement of the Arab League. But for how long?

While everyone knows the US is in the lead implementing the “No-Fly” zone, the Americans are labouring mightily to drive from the back seat. No wonder. The Administration seemed divided over the wisdom of military engagement in a third Moslem country. The US military is already severely stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan and the US’ fiscal situation leaves little room for yet another costly and vaguely defined military adventure. Especially, as Richard Haass, President of the Council on Foreign Relations, contended persuasively, in a country like Libya where, unlike Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the US has no overriding strategic reason to get involved. Besides, argues Haass, a “No-Fly” zone would “not be decisive given that aircraft and helicopters are not central to the regime’s military advantages. The only way to level the playing field would be to put trainers, advisers and special forces on the ground.”

Even when a “No-Fly” zone was deployed in Iraq after Saddam Hussein began to attack his own people, much more was needed to evict him from power...

...why should the onus for military action fall exclusively on the West, especially when the consequences of action – the end game – belie easy analysis. And why Canada? We are already doing much of the heavy-lifting in Afghanistan whereas several NATO allies have taken a pass. Is it because we were snubbed for a Security Council seat and want to re-establish our credentials for “peace-keeping”? Is it because we regard ourselves as an architect of the Responsibility to Protect concept adopted by the UN? If so, where will it lead – to Iran? Zimbabwe? North Korea? There is a long waiting list.

If military force was essential, it would have been more logical and more appropriate for the Arab League and/or the Organization of African Unity to have taken the lead. After all, despite its current turmoil, Egypt has the military muscle and is right next door. Saudi Arabia has the money and a very modern air force. Nigeria is also well-equipped [somehow I don't think together or separately they could did this sort of job the way it should be done].

As history eloquently illustrates, getting in is just the easy part. We are now at war and no-one really knows for how long.

Derek H. Burney, Senior Strategic Advisor to Ogilvy Renault LLP and Senior Research Fellow of the Canadian Defence & Foreign Affairs Institute (CDFAI), was the Ambassador of Canada to the United States from 1989 to 1993.

Mark
Ottawa
 
Latest from the fight itself, from the Canadian Press:
Canadian military fighters embarked on a second day of missions over Libya today but officials say they abandoned a planned attack on a Libyan airfield.

The mission marked their first offensive operations since arriving in-theatre on the weekend.

Maj.-Gen. Tom Lawson, a defence spokesman, says once over their target the Canadian pilots and command elements determined the risk of collateral damage was too high ....

.... Reuters:
Canadian military aircraft joined in a mission against ground targets in Libya on Tuesday, but did not drop their bombs amid concern there might be civilian casualties, military officials said.

Officials said two CF18 aircraft were assigned to attack a unspecified Libya airfield along with other aircraft from the U.S.-led coalition.

"Upon arrival on the scene in the target area, the air crew became aware of a risk (of collateral damage) they deemed as too high," Major General Tom Lawson, Canada's Assistant Chief of the Air Staff told reporters.

The Canadian jets returned safely to base.

Canada has sent six CF18 fighter jets to the operation and a frigate. It also has refueling aircraft in the region.

It was the second mission for Canadian planes in the campaign to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya to halt attacks on rebels and civilians and open the way for humanitarian help. It was the first time they had been assigned to attack a target ....

.... and Postmedia News:
Canadian fighter jets on a combat mission in Libya turned back without releasing their bombs Tuesday after it was determined that the risk of "collateral damage" was too great, Defence Minister Peter MacKay said.

"A determination was made to not drop ordinances based on their assessment of the situation on the ground," he told reporters in Ottawa. "We are there clearly to minimize any civilian casualties."

MacKay said the decision to call off the bombing run was consistent with the Canadian Forces' pilots orders and their training.

Two other Canadian CF-18s participated in air patrols off the coast of Libya on Tuesday in a mission similar to the first operation conducted by the Canadian Forces on Monday, MacKay said ....
 
From Derek Burney's comments, just above:

...And why Canada? We are already doing much of the heavy-lifting in Afghanistan whereas several NATO allies have taken a pass. Is it because we were snubbed for a Security Council seat and want to re-establish our credentials for “peace-keeping”? Is it because we regard ourselves as an architect of the Responsibility to Protect concept adopted by the UN? If so, where will it lead – to Iran? Zimbabwe? North Korea? There is a long waiting list.

Agreed.


If military force was essential, it would have been more logical and more appropriate for the Arab League and/or the Organization of African Unity to have taken the lead. After all, despite its current turmoil, Egypt has the military muscle and is right next door. Saudi Arabia has the money and a very modern air force. Nigeria is also well-equipped.

And agreed again.

 
To me, the Arab League is like the spouse who says "whatever" to anything ever asked. If it turns out good, then they take the credit.
If it goes south, then they can say "I told you so, its not OUR fault".

Is that too simplistic?
 
Criticism of Gadhafi grows bolder as rebels struggle to organize
Michael Georgy and Maria Golovnina Tripoli
Reuters
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/africa-mideast/criticism-of-gadhafi-grows-bolder-as-rebels-struggle-to-organize/article1951202/

After days of Western air strikes, some people in the Libyan capital felt bold enough on Tuesday to drop their customary praise of leader Muammar Gadhafi for a few moments and say instead they want him gone.

Residents who spoke to Reuters reporters in Tripoli were still too wary to give their names, and switched back to extolling Col. Gadhafi when officials came within earshot. .................

continues at the link.
 
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110322/crew-eject-us-fighter-110322/
CTV.ca News Staff
22 March 2011

‎The U.S. admiral commanding the coalition enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya confirmed Tuesday that forces loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi have launched attacks on civilians in the North Africa nation's third largest city.

Adm. Samuel J. Locklear said that the coalition is "considering all options" to stop the attacks on the city of Misrata, one of the cities that U.S. President Barack Obama has demanded that Gadhafi's forces retreat from. He would not elaborate. ..................

 
From my comments at the Burney post mentioned above:
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=151

The Liberals, NDP and Bloc all support the Libyan combat mission, in major part because it is UNSC-mandated. They all opposed (starting at different times) the Afghan combat mission, also–and repeatedly–UNSC-mandated, and with much more complete SC member support: usually unanimous: not 10-5, with Russia, China, India, Germany and Brazil (most of the other big fellows) abstaining on Libya.

Go figure.

I hardly see how the return of the Taliban would be much better than the wrath of Qadhafi in terms of civilians needing protection–and we’re very likely to kill some Libyan ones with our Hornets, something the gov’t would not risk in Afstan:
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=148

Keep figuring.

Maybe it’s just that the combination of a long real war and over 100 dead CF members is more than most of the country can stomach. How long will we stay involved in Libya if the operation does drag on?

Mark
Ottawa
 
:cdn: :yellow: :salute: :piper: 8)

All  that we can do is pray that this current situation in -L i B ya can come to an achievable solution without costing too many lives and distrupting the infrastructure of the country, so that the good honest people, whoever they be, can continue to strive towards a nation in which they feel safe from harm or from being treated in any way dehumanizing. 
The implementation of R 2P is something than can be used  for much good, however the Nations involved would be well advised to take measures to not wear themselves too thin. 

listed entities may or may not mobilize, but if we're on them like english springers a good ol flush may lead to some achievable results.

-this of course is merely something to ponder.

-jlmcgs



 
MarkOttawa said:
From my comments at the Burney post mentioned above:
http://www.cdfai.org/the3dsblog/?p=151

Mark
Ottawa

Referring to, or quoting a published article in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act is one thing.  Subsequently posting a link to your own submission to the article's comment list, no matter how witty or insightful you truly believe it to be, is skirting self-promotion, which is contrary to the Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines (excerpt below):

Professional Authors, Journalists, Retailers, Defence Contractors and Public Personalities

While authors, journalists, retailers, etc are encouraged to participate in the Forums, posts made for the purpose of self-promotion will be removed unless prior permission from the site owner has been granted. Interested parties should review the advertising options offered by Milnet.ca for more information.

While this is not the first instance of your posting in such a manner, the cumulative effect has been such that you have two options to address the issue: 1) adjust your posting style to comply with the site's conduct guidelines as a normal participant, or 2) commit to a suitable advertiser's agreement with Mr. Bobbitt as noted in the URL provided above.

Milnet.ca Staff
 
ABC news  has reported that both Russia and Chine are calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Qu'elle surpris.

Angling for the inside on the oil and construction projects?

Dont know what will happen, but all those  t-bills in China would make a dandy Financial Neutron bomb
 
Kalatzi said:
ABC news  has reported that both Russia and Chine are calling for an immediate ceasefire.

Qu'elle surpris.

Angling for the inside on the oil and construction projects?

Dont know what will happen, but all those  t-bills in China would make a dandy Financial Neutron bomb


The UN resolution is, in my opinion poorly, sloppily drafted - maybe that's why some UNSC members object.
 
E.R. Campbell said:
The UN resolution is, in my opinion poorly, sloppily drafted - maybe that's why some UNSC members object.

The full text of resolution 1973 (2011) reads as follows: [my emphasis added in place of the normal UN formatting to highlight the bits that matter]

"The Security Council,

Recalling its resolution 1970 (2011) of 26 February 2011,

Deploring the failure of the Libyan authorities to comply with resolution 1970 (2011),

Expressing grave concern at the deteriorating situation, the escalation of violence, and the heavy civilian casualties,

Reiterating the responsibility of the Libyan authorities to protect the Libyan population and reaffirming that parties to armed conflicts bear the primary responsibility to take all feasible steps to ensure the protection of civilians,

Condemning the gross and systematic violation of human rights, including arbitrary detentions, enforced disappearances, torture and summary executions,

Further condemning acts of violence and intimidation committed by the Libyan authorities against journalists, media professionals and associated personnel and urging these authorities to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law as outlined in resolution 1738 (2006),

Considering that the widespread and systematic attacks currently taking place in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya against the civilian population may amount to crimes against humanity,

Recalling paragraph 26 of resolution 1970 (2011) in which the Council expressed its readiness to consider taking additional appropriate measures, as necessary, to facilitate and support the return of humanitarian agencies and make available humanitarian and related assistance in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Expressing its determination to ensure the protection of civilians and civilian populated areas and the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance and the safety of humanitarian personnel,

Recalling the condemnation by the League of Arab States, the African Union and the Secretary-General of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of the serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law that have been and are being committed in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note of the final communiqué of the Organization of the Islamic Conference of 8 March 2011, and the communiqué of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union of 10 March 2011 which established an ad hoc High-Level Committee on Libya,

Taking note also of the decision of the Council of the League of Arab States of 12 March 2011 to call for the imposition of a no-fly zone on Libyan military aviation, and to establish safe areas in places exposed to shelling as a precautionary measure that allows the protection of the Libyan people and foreign nationals residing in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Taking note further of the Secretary-General’s call on 16 March 2011 for an immediate ceasefire,

Recalling its decision to refer the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya since 15 February 2011 to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, and stressing that those responsible for or complicit in attacks targeting the civilian population, including aerial and naval attacks, must be held to account,

Reiterating its concern at the plight of refugees and foreign workers forced to flee the violence in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, welcoming the response of neighbouring States, in particular Tunisia and Egypt, to address the needs of those refugees and foreign workers, and calling on the international community to support those efforts,

Deploring the continuing use of mercenaries by the Libyan authorities,

Considering that the establishment of a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians as well as the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and a decisive step for the cessation of hostilities in Libya,

Expressing concern also for the safety of foreign nationals and their rights in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Welcoming the appointment by the Secretary General of his Special Envoy to Libya, Mr. Abdul Ilah Mohamed Al-Khatib and supporting his efforts to find a sustainable and peaceful solution to the crisis in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Reaffirming its strong commitment to the sovereignty, independence, territorial integrity and national unity of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya,

Determining that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya continues to constitute a threat to international peace and security,

Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1.  Demands the immediate establishment of a ceasefire and a complete end to violence and all attacks against, and abuses of, civilians;

2.  Stresses the need to intensify efforts to find a solution to the crisis which responds to the legitimate demands of the Libyan people and notes the decisions of the Secretary-General to send his Special Envoy to Libya and of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union to send its ad hoc High-Level Committee to Libya with the aim of facilitating dialogue to lead to the political reforms necessary to find a peaceful and sustainable solution;

3.  Demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights and refugee law and take all measures to protect civilians and meet their basic needs, and to ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance;

Protection of civilians

4.  Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;

5.  Recognizes the important role of the League of Arab States in matters relating to the maintenance of international peace and security in the region, and bearing in mind Chapter VIII of the Charter of the United Nations, requests the Member States of the League of Arab States to cooperate with other Member States in the implementation of paragraph 4;

No-fly zone

6.  Decides to establish a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians;

7.  Decides further that the ban imposed by paragraph 6 shall not apply to flights whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, nor shall it apply to flights authorised by paragraphs 4 or 8, nor other flights which are deemed necessary by States acting under the authorization conferred in paragraph 8 to be for the benefit of the Libyan people, and that these flights shall be coordinated with any mechanism established under paragraph 8;

8.  Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,

9.  Calls upon all Member States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to provide assistance, including any necessary overflight approvals, for the purposes of implementing paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above;

10.  Requests the Member States concerned to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General on the measures they are taking to implement paragraphs 4, 6, 7 and 8 above, including practical measures for the monitoring and approval of authorised humanitarian or evacuation flights;

11.  Decides that the Member States concerned shall inform the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States immediately of measures taken in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above, including to supply a concept of operations;

12.  Requests the Secretary-General to inform the Council immediately of any actions taken by the Member States concerned in exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 8 above and to report to the Council within 7 days and every month thereafter on the implementation of this resolution, including information on any violations of the flight ban imposed by paragraph 6 above;

Enforcement of the arms embargo

13.  Decides that paragraph 11 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall be replaced by the following paragraph : “Calls upon all Member States, in particular States of the region, acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, in order to ensure strict implementation of the arms embargo established by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011), to inspect in their territory, including seaports and airports, and on the high seas, vessels and aircraft bound to or from the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items the supply, sale, transfer or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 or 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, calls upon all flag States of such vessels and aircraft to cooperate with such inspections and authorises Member States to use all measures commensurate to the specific circumstances to carry out such inspections”;

14.  Requests Member States which are taking action under paragraph 13 above on the high seas to coordinate closely with each other and the Secretary-General and further requests the States concerned to inform the Secretary-General and the Committee established pursuant to paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) (“the Committee”) immediately of measures taken in the exercise of the authority conferred by paragraph 13 above;

15.  Requires any Member State whether acting nationally or through regional organisations or arrangements, when it undertakes an inspection pursuant to paragraph 13 above, to submit promptly an initial written report to the Committee containing, in particular, explanation of the grounds for the inspection, the results of such inspection, and whether or not cooperation was provided, and, if prohibited items for transfer are found, further requires such Member States to submit to the Committee, at a later stage, a subsequent written report containing relevant details on the inspection, seizure, and disposal, and relevant details of the transfer, including a description of the items, their origin and intended destination, if this information is not in the initial report;

16.  Deplores the continuing flows of mercenaries into the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya and calls upon all Member States to comply strictly with their obligations under paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011) to prevent the provision of armed mercenary personnel to the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;

Ban on flights

17.  Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft registered in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or owned or operated by Libyan nationals or companies to take off from, land in or overfly their territory unless the particular flight has been approved in advance by the Committee, or in the case of an emergency landing;

18.  Decides that all States shall deny permission to any aircraft to take off from, land in or overfly their territory, if they have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that the aircraft contains items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 9 and 10 of resolution 1970 (2011) as modified by this resolution, including the provision of armed mercenary personnel, except in the case of an emergency landing;

Asset freeze

19.  Decides that the asset freeze imposed by paragraph 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or by entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and decides further that all States shall ensure that any funds, financial assets or economic resources are prevented from being made available by their nationals or by any individuals or entities within their territories, to or for the benefit of the Libyan authorities, as designated by the Committee, or individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, or entities owned or controlled by them, as designated by the Committee, and directs the Committee to designate such Libyan authorities, individuals or entities within 30 days of the date of the adoption of this resolution and as appropriate thereafter;

20.  Affirms its determination to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall, at a later stage, as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;

21.  Decides that all States shall require their nationals, persons subject to their jurisdiction and firms incorporated in their territory or subject to their jurisdiction to exercise vigilance when doing business with entities incorporated in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya or subject to its jurisdiction, and any individuals or entities acting on their behalf or at their direction, and entities owned or controlled by them, if the States have information that provides reasonable grounds to believe that such business could contribute to violence and use of force against civilians;

Designations

22.  Decides that the individuals listed in Annex I shall be subject to the travel restrictions imposed in paragraphs 15 and 16 of resolution 1970 (2011), and decides further that the individuals and entities listed in Annex II shall be subject to the asset freeze imposed in paragraphs 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011);

23.  Decides that the measures specified in paragraphs 15, 16, 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply also to individuals and entities determined by the Council or the Committee to have violated the provisions of resolution 1970 (2011), particularly paragraphs 9 and 10 thereof, or to have assisted others in doing so;

Panel of Experts

24.  Requests the Secretary-General to create for an initial period of one year, in consultation with the Committee, a group of up to eight experts (“Panel of Experts”), under the direction of the Committee to carry out the following tasks:

(a)  Assist the Committee in carrying out its mandate as specified in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution;

(b)  Gather, examine and analyse information from States, relevant United Nations bodies, regional organisations and other interested parties regarding the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;

(c)  Make recommendations on actions the Council, or the Committee or State, may consider to improve implementation of the relevant measures;

(d)  Provide to the Council an interim report on its work no later than 90 days after the Panel’s appointment, and a final report to the Council no later than 30 days prior to the termination of its mandate with its findings and recommendations;

25.  Urges all States, relevant United Nations bodies and other interested parties, to cooperate fully with the Committee and the Panel of Experts, in particular by supplying any information at their disposal on the implementation of the measures decided in resolution 1970 (2011) and this resolution, in particular incidents of non-compliance;

26.  Decides that the mandate of the Committee as set out in paragraph 24 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall also apply to the measures decided in this resolution;

27.  Decides that all States, including the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, shall take the necessary measures to ensure that no claim shall lie at the instance of the Libyan authorities, or of any person or body in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, or of any person claiming through or for the benefit of any such person or body, in connection with any contract or other transaction where its performance was affected by reason of the measures taken by the Security Council in resolution 1970 (2011), this resolution and related resolutions;

28.  Reaffirms its intention to keep the actions of the Libyan authorities under continuous review and underlines its readiness to review at any time the measures imposed by this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011), including by strengthening, suspending or lifting those measures, as appropriate, based on compliance by the Libyan authorities with this resolution and resolution 1970 (2011);

29.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter."
 
Nato to take control in Libya after US, UK and France reach agreement
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/libya-nato-us-france-uk

Britain, France and the US have agreed that Nato will take over the military command of the no-fly zone over Libya in a move that represents a setback for Nicolas Sarkozy, who had hoped to diminish the role of the alliance.

Barack Obama agreed in separate phone calls with Sarkozy and David Cameron that political oversight would be handed to a separate body made up of members of the coalition, including Arab countries such as Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, which are outside Nato.........................
 
Shared in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act

Historically the area of Libya was considered three provinces (or states), Tripolitania in the northwest,
Barka (Cyrenaica) in the east, and Fezzan in the southwest. It also had two Capitals, Tripoli and
Benghazi both of which served alternately as the Capital of Libya.
There is a possibility of Libya being splt up into two independant states as it was once before.
An interesting read from The American Kafir;
Libya’s Split Between Cyrenaica and Tripolitania
http://americankafir.wordpress.com/2011/02/24/libyas-split-between-cyrenaica-and-tripolitania/

also
An excert from another article:
Seeing Libya’s Future In Darfur’s Past
By Peripheral Revision  22 March, 2011

http://www.countercurrents.org/pr220311.htm
The potential end-game of the conflict in Libya is to establish a new, "independent" (meaning from anyone other than the U.S.) state in the resource concentrated region of the north-east. This is where the "rebel" stronghold city of Benghazi is located. From the map of Libya’s population density, you can deduce the approximate borders of a possible independent country:

 
Is going into Libya a sensible act on the part of Canada and the United States? Is it really in accord with our national interest? This article suggests no:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/our-blood-and-treasure-for-britain-and-france/

Our Blood and Treasure, for Britain and France

Posted By Abraham H. Miller On March 23, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Uncategorized | No Comments

There is not a no-fly zone over Zimbabwe, where an oppressive dictator capriciously murders its citizens while condemning them to a life of poverty. There is not a no-fly zone over Bahrain, where the Saudi National Guard is reinforcing a regime shooting its people in the streets. There is not a no-fly zone over Yemen, which is also shooting demonstrators. There is not a no-fly zone over Syria, where the Assad dynasty is once again killing the opposition, and where decades earlier — without a hiccup from the international community — it destroyed the entire city of Hama [1] to suppress an uprising.

None of the pious rationales for intervention in Libya seem to square remotely with the way in which the international community generally, and the United States specifically, deals with tyrants.

Just days prior to our intervention in Libya, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton [2] was before the cameras admonishing everyone that no-fly zones don’t work, using Iraq as a case in point.

So what changed?

If we are to believe Andrea Mitchell [3], the Arab League convinced Hillary Clinton to persuade the administration to bring down the murderous Libyan dictator. This explanation is so comical that it should be a skit for Saturday Night Live. The Arab League is made up of some of the most ruthless, oppressive, and illegitimate regimes on the planet. The league is best-known for issuing the infamous “Three Nos of Khartoum,” condemning Israel for its very existence, and lobbing fiercely just weeks ago for a UN human rights accolade [4] for the same Libyan dictator it asserts that it now wants to remove from power.

Persuaded by the Arab League, so the story goes, Hillary Clinton found an ally in UN Ambassador Susan Rice, and these “courageous women” joined forces to get the administration to support the UN no-fly zone.

This tale of the Arab League and Hillary Clinton seems to be one of those typical contrived leaks for which Washington is famous. Indeed, within twenty-four hours, the Arab League shifted sides, and is now condemning the Western powers for the fierce bombing.

Libya has a no-fly zone because the British and French want Libyan oil, and they no longer view the ever-bellicose and irrational Moammar Gaddafi as a responsible partner. Nations have interests. They do not have friends. They have allies as a matter of ephemeral convenience.

When CIA operative Kermit Roosevelt [5] reinstalled the Palavi dynasty in Iran after the CIA-sponsored coup that eliminated Mohammed Mossadegh, among Mohammed Palavi’s first acts was to replace the Anglo-French oil companies with American oil companies.

If Zimbabwe had oil, it too might get a no-fly zone.

Britain is so desperate for drilling rights in Libya that it engineered the release and repatriation of the Libyan bomber of Pan American Flight 103 [6], ignoring international outrage. France is one of the major importers of Libyan oil, and France accepted trivial compensation for a Libyan mid-air bombing of one its flights, UTA 772 [7]. The incident, like Pan Am 103, was settled by Gaddafi’s government paying monetary compensation to the victims’ families.

After tolerating the murder of its citizens in order to get access to Libya’s  easily refined oil, Britain and France saw in Libya’s uprising the handwriting on the wall. Gaddafi might end up on the scrap heap of history, and what Britain and France needed was a new Libyan partner.

With Britain and France ostensibly standing up for the “democratic” opposition and the media bringing the visual horror of Gaddafi’s words and deeds to the world, the Obama administration could not continue to sit on the sidelines. Yet the media has been beating the drums over the “democratic” opposition, but there has been no real analysis of what the opposition will bring to the political process, if they do win.

In the meantime, Hillary Clinton’s earlier warning that no-fly zones are ineffectual because they don’t stop troops and tanks has been superseded in this conflict by the French. Their air force has been doing more than just keeping Libyan planes out of the air. They shot up Libyan tanks and armor, carving out seemingly new rules of engagement without objection, until the Arab League began to complain.

If the Arab League wanted to stop Gaddafi, they didn’t have to wait until his forces were near victorious, nor did they really need the West to carry out the attacks. Egypt and Saudi Arabia alone could have defeated Gaddafi, but ultimately they had no desire to do so. What they had was the desire to rhetorically enter the fray and to posture appropriately for the international community when it appeared Gaddafi would win. After all, the continual fall of Arab tyrants and despots threatens the Arab League itself, an organization comprised of despots and tyrants.

Obama has dragged us into yet another endless war in the Islamic world, a war where the military mission is clear, as it was in the early days of Iraq, and where the strategy and endgame are totally undefined. Britain’s and France’s strategic interests in this conflict are unambiguous. America’s?  They are no clearer than they are in Zimbabwe and a host of other places where people are wantonly oppressed and killed by tyrants.

Obama’s ineptitude made him an easy patsy for the strategic interests of Britain and France. American blood and treasure will be needlessly spilled because we have elected a president who is too disengaged to lead and too naive to understand the consequences of his actions.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/our-blood-and-treasure-for-britain-and-france/

URLs in this post:

[1] Hama: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hama_massacre

[2] Hillary Clinton: http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20110314/ts_dailybeast/12908_libyanoflyzonesamericanbackers_1

[3] Andrea Mitchell: http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/21/6312078-obama-agenda-the-women-vs-the-men

[4] UN human rights accolade: http://www.conservativechristianonward.com/apps/blog/show/6292694-vermin-at-un-release-report-to-praise-libya-s-history-on-human-rights

[5] Kermit Roosevelt: http://www.google.com/url?q=http://www.suite101.com/content/kermit-roosevelt-and-the-iranian-coup-of-1953-a134760&sa=U&ei=7oSHTfziFJL4swP28byHAg&ved=0CBIQFjAA&sig2=3y0uKXn9c-z78LyjXgWeNQ&usg=AFQjCNE5D3osnwSjk1Ve62pjmZ1u1eg9rw

[6] Libyan bomber of Pan American Flight 103: http://articles.cnn.com/2009-08-20/world/lockerbie.bomber.reaction_1_megrahi-victoria-cummock-libyan-leader-moammar-gadhafi?_s=PM:WORLD

[7] UTA 772: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/3163621.stm
 
A tongue-in-cheek assessment of the NATO control structure, from the New Atlanticist blog:
A former official with long experience on NATO sends along a concise, if slightly tongue-in-cheek, guide to the intra-alliance debate over NATO's role in Libya:

    The Italians want NATO to take over so they can avoid national responsibility  (ie, tell their Arab friends "it's not us, it's NATO, so we don't have a choice").

    The French want to keep NATO out because they want to prove that THEY are the true friends of the Arabs, and they'll keep that bad NATO away.

    The Germans want to keep NATO out because they don't believe in military action, and NATO having responsibility means Germany would be held to be responsible (for further reading, see "Afghanistan").

    The Turks want to keep NATO out to prove that they are the regional power Arabs should look to to protect their interests inside NATO.

    The US wants NATO to take over as a "handoff" -- even though it means a handoff to ourselves.  In the American political lexicon, NATO has come to mean "Europe" -- and the Obama team just wants to hand off so it's not an "Obama war."

    The UK wants to stick close to the US on this, because if the US bails, the UK doesn't want to be holding the bag.

    Apart from that, we've got a consensus!

That about covers it.
 
Good2Golf said:
Referring to, or quoting a published article in accordance with the Fair Dealings provisions of the Copyright Act is one thing.  Subsequently posting a link to your own submission to the article's comment list, no matter how witty or insightful you truly believe it to be, is skirting self-promotion, which is contrary to the Milnet.ca Conduct Guidelines (excerpt below):

While this is not the first instance of your posting in such a manner, the cumulative effect has been such that you have two options to address the issue: 1) adjust your posting style to comply with the site's conduct guidelines as a normal participant, or 2) commit to a suitable advertiser's agreement with Mr. Bobbitt as noted in the URL provided above.

Milnet.ca Staff

+100 (whatever that is)
(although I read his articles on occasion)
 
CF confirms first Canadian bombing sortie, via CTV.ca:
Canadian CF-18s have bombed a Libyan ammunition depot.

The air force says four of the jet fighters, supported by two air-to-air refuelling aircraft, conducted two separate bombing runs last night and this morning.

The first attack took place overnight near Misurata, Libya's third-largest city, located east of Tripoli.

Maj.-Gen. Tom Lawson, the deputy chief of air staff, told an Ottawa briefing that four laser-guided bombs were dropped on the depot.

He had no information on where the second attack place or what kind of damage it may have inflicted ....
 
Maj.-Gen. Tom Lawson, the deputy chief of air staff, told an Ottawa briefing....
The Airforce certainly has highly-paid Public Affairs Officers  ;)
 
Back
Top