No Fly zones over Libya?

[little grey rabbit]

How we react to casualties

Strategy #1: Say that we have intelligence that they are civilian protesters killed by Gaddafi (personally one presumes) and being rebadged and reburied. Perfect because it is completely untestable.

Strategy #2: Say they are the result of NATO bombs hitting a [Gaddafi] ammunition dump - so [sotto voce] they are really killed by Gaddafi (personally).

At the moment we have two cases of "secondary" civilian death.

The most implausible claim comes courtesy of the New York Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/31/world/africa/31casualty.html

GHARYAN, Libya — Standing at the grave of an 18-month-old baby on Wednesday, officials of the Qaddafi government presented the first specific and credible case of a civilian death caused by Western airstrikes.

But relatives speaking a few yards away said they blamed Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi and welcomed the bombs.

“No, no, no, this is not from NATO,” one relative said, speaking quietly and on condition of anonymity for fear of retaliation. The Western planes had struck an ammunition depot at a military base nearby, he said, and the explosion had sent a tank shell flying into the bedroom of the baby, a boy, in a civilian’s home. “What NATO is doing is good,” he said, referring to the Western military alliance that is enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya.

The testimony of the boy’s parents, a hole in the wall, damage to the house, quietly grieving family members, and a baby-sized and freshly covered grave appeared to confirm the relative’s account of the death.

Well of course, please keep bombing.

I am a bit confused. Not only are Gaddafi's feared security service so lax that they do not seem to be able to control what happens on an official tour, but presuming Mr Kirkpatrick can't speak Arabic, there seems to a good level of English knowledge in this town. And on top of that the parents seem so eager for NATO bombs that they seem to have no problem in picking out the NY Times reporter from the mass of international media on the tour.

Josef Goebbels, thou are avenged!

How many more Gaddafi ammunition dumps kill civilians stories can we run before it looks stale?

 

[little grey rabbit]

Another version says officials were actually saying it was from an ammunition dump

There was instead a small group of women, some huddled in a ground floor sitting area, consoling each other as a cool gray drizzle fell on this mountaintop village. And there was a single, small plot of dirt in the local cemetery housing the remains of Sirajeddine Suessi, an 18-month-old infant killed early Tuesday morning by a stray Libyan rocket. Though it's not clear why the weapon exploded in the youngster's house, residents here speculate — and government officials claim — that it was set off by a Western-led airstrike on a government weapons depot several miles away.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-libya-civilian-20110331,0,2209940.story

Probably they are all lying. Either it was stray fire by insurgents or stray fire by government forces from ground fighting.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...6237042432212406.html?mod=WSJ_World_LeadStory

Ex-Mujahedeen Help Lead Libyan Rebels

DARNA, Libya—Two former Afghan Mujahedeen and a six-year detainee at Guantanamo Bay have stepped to the fore of this city's military campaign, training new recruits for the front and to protect the city from infiltrators loyal to Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

… snip …

Abdel Hakim al-Hasady, an influential Islamic preacher and high-school teacher who spent five years at a training camp in eastern Afghanistan, oversees the recruitment, training and deployment of about 300 rebel fighters from Darna.

… snip ...

Sufyan Ben Qumu, a Libyan army veteran who worked for Osama bin Laden's holding company in Sudan and later for an al Qaeda-linked charity in Afghanistan, is training many of the city's rebel recruits.

Both Messrs. Hasady and Ben Qumu were picked up by Pakistani authorities after the U.S.-led invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 and were turned over to the U.S. Mr. Hasady was released to Libyan custody two months later. Mr. Ben Qumu spent six years at Guantanamo Bay before he was turned over to Libyan custody in 2007.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...likely-outcome/2011/04/01/AFxt1uJC_story.html

Stalemate in Libya increasingly viewed as a likely outcome

Quagmire?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap...3wYqGw?docId=4d1680be5c1b424eaf301576b14387d8

BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — A plan to sell rebel-held oil to buy weapons and other supplies has been reached with Qatar, a rebel official said Friday, in another sign of deepening aid for Libya's opposition by the wealthy Gulf state after sending warplanes to help confront Moammar Gadhafi's forces.

Oh boy. Now al-Qaeda has oil to sell. Wonder what havoc they might manage with access to billions of dollars? Hmmmmm?

By the way, isn't there a weapons embargo in effect?

 

[BeAChooser]

democrats sure are devious …

http://pajamasmedia.com/claudiarosett/ "The Senate and the No-Fly Zone: The Legend Begins"

If this is how foreign policy now works, and the constitutional role of Congress in declaring war now boils down to slipping a note about the UN into a nonbinding no-debate no-vote resolution passed in a sparsely populated Senate chamber, then watch out. God only knows what adventures America’s president might next embark upon.

http://www.nationalreview.com/corne...ution-authorizing-libya-war-andrew-c-mccarthy "More on that Senate resolution “authorizing” the Libya war"

While Secretary Clinton has continued to refer to S. Res. 85 as a Senate endorsement of the President’s establishment of a no-fly zone, I’d like to point out to the American people that this talking point is very misleading.

Senate Resolution 85 received the same amount of consideration as a bill to rename a post office; it was ‘hotlined’ and there was no debate allowed on this issue and no legislative language provided to consider. There was no vote.

S. Res. 85 described a no-fly zone as a “possible” course of action for the U.N. Security Council’s consideration. It did not instruct the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations to take action, let alone authorize a military operation.

Using the hotline process for S. Res. 85 as a congressional endorsement for the President’s policy is simply not an adequate use of Congress’ role in authorizing military action.

The Administration unilaterally developed, planned and executed its no-fly zone policy. President Obama consulted the UN, NATO and Arab League, but did not consult what is mandated under our laws and Constitution. There was no Congressional approval or oversight of this military commitment.

S. Res. 85 simply does not authorize or endorse the use of force. It urges a multilateral body to consider a no-fly zone as a possible course of action.

That is not the legal equivalent of an authorization to use force. That is not the political equivalent of an authorization to use force.

So what is S.Res. 85? It is a disrespectful checking of the box by this Administration for congressional approval of its unilateral military decision.

http://www.freemaninky.com/2011/03/truth-about-senator-paul-and-senate.html "The truth about Senator Paul and Senate Resolution 85. Lawrence O'Donnell owes a retraction."

Basically, Nick Ramsey and Mr. O'Donnell, on his show last night, falsely imply Senator Paul supported the US led "Nato Libyan war/conflict/jaunt/policing/hand holding/let me be clear/camping trip." So, I decided to get clarification since there was absolutely no evidence of a vote on the US Senate page. A Paul staffer explained it best that Mr. O'Donnell is wrong.

The Paul staff told Free Man In Kentucky "There wasn't a vote. It was rushed through by Unanimous Consent, with no debate or discussion about what was in it. We didn't even get to see what it was, and Senator Paul never voted on it. Also, Senator Paul didn't even have a chance to object to it because the resolution--which is non-binding-- was in and out before he made it back to the floor."

 

[BeAChooser]

Very interesting D) comparison between Iraq and Libya:

http://www.redstate.com/absentee/2011/04/01/iraq-vs-libya-a-graphic-interpretation/

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

From Obama's Libya speech:

The writ of the UN Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling its future credibility to uphold global peace and security.

[That is, if he hadn't ordered military intervention.]

From UN Resolution 1973 (the "writ" he was referring to):

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

Yet, the U.S. and NATO are actively aiding the rebels by providing air support for their attempts to expand the territory they control.

According to Gates, even someone not-uniformed who has heavy weaponry (especially anti-aircraft) are not considered "civilians".

As I recently mentioned, the rebels have announced conditions for a ceasefire, which shows that they have rejected this demand of the resolution.

So it seems that Obama's actions have turned this part of the UN Resolution into "empty words". There seems to be the idea that we can justify military intervention by this resolution by choosing sort of ala carte which parts of the resolution we want to take seriously.

ETA: BTW, I just heard a BBC radio report of an incident where coalition planes accidentally bombed rebel forces after one of them fired an anti-aircraft weapon. The reporter ended the story by saying something like, "they ended up bombing the very troops they were there to support". But I thought we were there to enforce a no-fly zone and enforce the cease-fire. In fact, we have, as I've said all along, joined a civil war on the side of the rebels, with no legal justification.

 

[Noztradamus]

~~~~~
In fact, we have, as I've said all along, joined a civil war on the side of the rebels, with no legal justification.

“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

 

[BeAChooser]

Say, Obama ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...1-000-just-town-Ivory-Coast-battle-rages.html

A thousand civilians have been found massacred in a small town in Ivory Coast amid worsening civil conflict in the West African state.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/nato-forces-kill-15-libya-rebels/t/story?id=13282016

NATO forces accidentally struck a convoy of five cars belonging to rebel forces west of Ajdabiyah today, reportedly killing at least 15 Libyan rebels and injuring seven.

Meaning that NATO forces are attacking Ghaddafi forces that aren't even tanks, etc.

Any pretext that NATO is obeying the UN resolution is a joke.

 

[Thunder]

Say, Obama ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...1-000-just-town-Ivory-Coast-battle-rages.html

I'm sorry, but since when do Conservatives care about the suffering of black people?

 

[BeAChooser]

I'm sorry, but since when do Conservatives care about the suffering of black people?

Gee, I seem to recall the first Bush sending US military forces to Somalia to help them.

And it's my opinion that liberal policies have done far more damage to blacks in this country than conservative ones.

Dependency isn't pretty.

 

[geni]

Say, Obama ...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...1-000-just-town-Ivory-Coast-battle-rages.html

Err yes the daily mail. Not the best of sources. The ICRC who were the people who actualy went to Duekoue have a slightly lower number of deaths and appear to think that it wasn't exactly one sided.

In any case if you actualy cared about Ivory Coast you would know there has already been an intervention (which until about a week back had actualty stopped the civil war) so it is a little odd to be complaining about a lack of action.

Anyway france is ah taking steps. Okey so nominaly the extra troops are to guard the airport but well we (well all of us who's interest in that region of africa goes beyond low level attempts at political point scoring) all know what that means.

 

[Laeke]

150 soldiers were also sent yesterday. The French Licorne force is protecting the expatriates district. Securing the airport is probably to allow evacuation if need be.

Boosting up the numbers is also obviously a deterrent and a way to allow direct action if the situation calls for it.

An important thing to keep in mind is that as often in Africa, France have a dubious position: The Licorne force is there to support the ONUCI (interposition force), officially, but remains an independant force. The French governement can pretty much act on its own with it, which does have its advantages (it can cope with the situation quickly). I doubt they will take direct action for one side or another, but it can put a lid on the possible chaos that would erupt in the city.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

“When the President does it, that means that it is not illegal.”

Nixon, right?

In a way, I find Obama's thinking this way to be worse because he rose politically largely by criticizing (correctly, IMO) Bush over these sort of things. Ignoring the law; letting real or perceived concerns for security take precedence over ideals.

 

[BeAChooser]

Err yes the daily mail. Not the best of sources.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/04/02/ivory-coast-massacre-1000-killed-duekoue_n_844000.html "Ivory Coast Massacre: Charity Claims More Than 1,000 Killed In Duekoue"

And just so you know, the author of that article, Michelle Faul, is with Associated Press. Are they a good source?

Anyway france is ah taking steps.

But where's Obama? Surely he's not going to leave everything up to France.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...o-explain-rift/2011/04/02/AFEpJFRC_story.html

Several cars and an ambulance were also incinerated

Wow. NATO bombed an ambulance?

 

[Stout]

When the rebellion started I was very much in favour of the rebels.

After evaluating the information that has gradually become available, I changed my position.

Evidence indicates the rebels:
- Can't fight or organize themselves.
- Have very limited popular support in Tripolitania.
- Are mainly motivated by tribal and regional rivalries with some extremist religion thrown in, instead of democratic reforms.

Gadaffi is a nasty piece of work, but he knows how to pacify and stabilize the country.

We're being suckered to side with the losers in a tribal war, and that means we'll not only have to do most of the fighting for them, but probably also do much nationbuilding afterwards. We're better off if Gadaffi stays in power.

I fully side this.

I'm wondering why this thing isn't over by now as far as international intervention goes. Sure, level the playing field by enforcing a no fly zone then let the people of Libya chart their own course.

But

The more information that comes out, the more I';m thinking these "rebels" don't represent nearly the popular sentiment we were led to believe and even with the no fly zone in place don't have, and never did have a snowball's chance of ever winning this thing.

 

[BeAChooser]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704520504576162820431712238.html

FEBRUARY 24, 2011

WASHINGTON—The government of Col. Moammar Gadhafi hasn't destroyed significant stockpiles of mustard gas and other chemical-weapons agents, raising fears in Washington about what could happen to them—and whether they may be used—as Libya slides further into chaos.

… snip …

Libya was to have destroyed all 23 metric tons of its mustard gas by the end of last year, according to the OPCW, but 9.5 metric tons remain. The Hague-based body said Libya was granted an extension until May to destroy the rest.

Libya also possesses more than half of the 1,300 metric tons of precursor chemicals used for developing chemical agents. The material is believed to be stored in jugs at the former Rabta chemical-weapons facility.

With the above in mind, here's some food for thought …


http://punditpress.blogspot.com/2011/04/terrorist-groups-hezbollah-and-hamas.html

April 2, 2011

Terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas may now have chemical weapons.

... snip ...

According to this story, a large number of artillery shells containing deadly chemical agents came into rebel hands when they captured facilities in and around Benghazi. Apparently the rebels obtained at least 2,000 artillery shells carrying mustard gas and 1,200 nerve gas shells, and sold them “for cash payment amounting to several million dollars”. The buyers? Iran, Hamas, and Hezbollah. The destination? Gaza and Lebanon.

While I need to caution that I have only a single source for this story at this time, it needs to be taken seriously. According to this source, representatives of Iran met with rebel leaders in Benghazi because they recognized a unique opportunity to get hold of Qaddafi’s stock of poison gas. They saw a chance to supply Hezbollah and Hamas with chemical weapons without Iran being implicated. The weapons supposedly can be delivered by artillery or by drones, and it is known that Hezbollah has obtained drones from Iran.