Updates on Libyan war: March 30
====
U.S. Aircraft, Warship Attack Libyan Vessels
Libyan War: “NATO Command Is Up And Running”
NATO’s Libyan War Is American War
NATO Uses Depleted Uranium Bombs Against Libyans
Analyst: Libyans’ Turn For NATO Depleted Uranium Poisoning
Media Questions West’s Double Standards In Arab World
Syria Blames Outside Forces For Unrest
Brzezinski Blasts Germany, Poland For Lukewarm Support Of Libyan War
Argentine President Condemns NATO’s War In Libya
Sweden Accedes To NATO Demand, To Deploy Eight Warplanes For Libyan Campaign
NATO Orders Bulgarian Warship To Libyan Waters
NATO’s Assault On Libya: 1,800 Sorties, 214 Cruise Missile Attacks
70 Percent Of Britons Fear New Iraq-Style War In Libya
NATO’s Top Military Commander: Foreign Stabilization Force In Libya
Videos And Text: Obama Establishes Doctrine Around Libya
France Sends Envoy To Libyan Rebel Base: Report
Qatar Launches Television Channel For Libyan Insurgents
====
U.S. Aircraft, Warship Attack Libyan Vessels
http://www.navy.mil/search/display.asp?story_id=59406
Navy NewsStand
March 30, 2011
US Navy P-3C, USAF A-10 and USS Barry Engage Libyan Vessels
From Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn Public Affairs
USS MOUNT WHITNEY, At Sea: A U.S. Navy P-3C Orion maritime patrol aircraft, U.S. Air Force A-10 Thunderbolt attack aircraft and guided-missile destroyer USS Barry (DDG-52), engaged Libyan Coast Guard vessel Vittoria and two smaller craft March 28.
….
The P-3C fired at Vittoria with AGM-65F Maverick missiles, rendering the 12-meter patrol vessel ineffective and forcing it to be beached after multiple explosions were observed in the vicinity of the port.
Two smaller Libyan craft were fired upon by the A-10 using its 30mm GAU-8/ Avenger cannon, destroying one and forcing the other to be abandoned.
Barry provided situational awareness for the aircraft by managing the airspace and maintaining the maritime picture.
The P-3C, A-10 and Barry are currently supporting operations for Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn.
Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn is the U.S. Africa Command task force established to provide operational and tactical command and control of U.S. military forces….
====
Libyan War: “NATO Command Is Up And Running”
http://en.trend.az/regions/met/arabicr/1853137.html
Deutsche Presse-Agentur
March 30, 2011
NATO starts taking over command of Libya military operations
NATO has officially started taking over the command of military operations in Libya, officials said Wednesday, DPA reported.
“NATO command is up and running,” a NATO official said. “We received all the pledges we need.”
Military sources said there are still some jets and military equipment that had to be placed under NATO’s control by their respective governments, but that was expected to happen within hours.
Belgian pilots have already transitioned to NATO command, the Belga news agency reported.
Canadian Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard is leading the NATO mission, code-named Unified Protector, from the alliance’s maritime headquarters in Naples, Italy.
NATO ambassadors had paved the way on Sunday for the military alliance to take total control of operations meant to protect civilians from Libyan leader Moamer Gaddafi’s troops.
NATO had already been in charge of enforcing a no-fly zone over the North African country and patrolling an arms embargo in the Mediterranean.
====
NATO’s Libyan War Is American War
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/30/48197480.html
Voice of Russia
March 30, 2011
The game’s not worth the Tomahawk
Boris Volkhonsky
-No matter how the US is trying to keep the low profile, its leading role is demonstrated by pure figures: 550 million dollars so far and an additional 40 million every consecutive week.
The US has calculated the cost of the military operation against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi which started on March 19. So far, it has already cost the US taxpayers about 550 million dollars. Most of the cost comes from the Tomahawk launches. There have been 192 launches by US alone, each costing about $1.5 million.
Also, the US Air Force has flown 983 sorties – 370 of them being air missions against military sites and forces and the rest for surveillance, refueling and so on. All in all, about 60 percent of the spending was on munitions.
The rest was due to “higher operating tempo” of U.S. forces and of getting them there, said Commander Kathleen Kesler, a Pentagon spokeswoman. The overall figure does not include certain expenditures which would have been spent in any case – such as relocating US soldiers and marines abroad, salaries to military personnel, etc.
As predicted, the cost of the operation will steadily grow at a pace of about $40 million per week. And that regards only the US troops.
The peculiarity of the situation is that the US has been trying to keep as low a profile in the whole operation as possible, trying to present it as a purely European (mainly, French and British) initiative.
But the bare language of figures shows that the whole case is “politics as usual”. Other participants of the coalition have not yet officially calculated how much it has and is likely to cost them. But as for the British, it has been estimated that until now the operation has cost British taxpayers about £25 million (which makes it more than ten times less than the overall US expenditures). There have been seven Tomahawk launches, and British planes have flown 120 missions.
The figures for the French forces have not yet been made public, but one may expect that they would hardly exceed the British.
The whole story makes any unbiased observer look closer at the issue of “qui prodest” (“who benefits”).
From the very beginning of the Libyan unrest, it has been the West’s intention to picture the whole situation as bearing completely regional (more precisely, Mediterranean) significance.
Unrest in Libya had a direct impact on its northern neighbors, most notably Italy and France, being the primary buyers of Libyan oil. More so, for Barack Obama, the whole case was an opportunity to demonstrate that he as a national leader is completely different from his predecessor, George W. Bush Junior.
Now that the two wars launched by George W, have not come to an end and the very possibility of ending them in any favorable manner for the USA seems to be vaguer and vaguer day by day, it would be a grave mistake for Barack Obama to get involved in a third war. Hence, all his statements of a “limited involvement” and his attempts to keep a low profile and present the whole operation as having nothing in common with wars against Afghanistan and Iraq.
Well, this might be the US administration’s intention. But we all know too well what road is paved with good intentions. And a bare figure is not something you can easily disregard.
The cost of the war shows openly and starkly in numbers. Those numbers do not directly reflect other costs – like human lives or future repercussions for regional cooperation in the Southern Mediterranean. But they clearly show, who the chief player in this gross geopolitical game is. No matter how the US is trying to keep the low profile, its leading role is demonstrated by pure figures: 550 million dollars so far and an additional 40 million every consecutive week.
====
NATO Uses Depleted Uranium Bombs Against Libyans
http://english.ruvr.ru/2011/03/30/48203222.html
Voice of Russia
March 30, 2011
NATO uses depleted uranium bombs against Libya
-Even if these shells explode in a desert far from residential areas, for many Libyans this is a postponed death sentence. The same happened in Iraq where depleted uranium bombs were also used in a desert. A brief look at cancer statistics in Iraq and former Yugoslavia is enough to imagine what awaits Libyans in the near future.
“An unacceptable threat to life and a violation of international law” – that’s how the United States’ former Justice Secretary Ramsey Clark slammed the use of depleted uranium weapons. The United States first used depleted uranium bombs during the military invasion of Iraq in 1991.
Apparently pleased with the debut, the Americans pounded them on Yugoslavia nine years later. These days, world news media have been awash with reports that NATO is using depleted uranium bombs against Libya.
Leaving aside the legal and moral aspect of the attacks, a question arises: can’t NATO crush Colonel Gaddafi’s Armed Forces without radioactive exposure?
Political observer Sergei Guk discussed the issue with Voice of Russia guests General Director of the Center for International and Strategic Research Vladimir Belous and Deputy Director of the Institute for the U.S. and Canadian Studies Pavel Zolotaryov, both retired major generals.
Shells, bombs and cruise missiles stuffed with depleted uranium easily pierce through thick and heavy armor. That’s why the American military value them so much. According to political research centers in Germany, about 300 radioactive shells were fired at Saddam Hussein’s troops from the air and from the ground during the first campaign, launched in 1991. Twenty-one U.S. tanks were hit by mistake.
The consequences were not slow to arrive. In 2003, the World Health Organization reported a rise in cancer diseases in five provinces in southern Iraq. Air, water and soil were contaminated with radiation. Leukemia south of Baghdad assumed epidemic proportions. By 2009, cancer rates grew to thousands of new cases per year.
The uranium filling boomeranged on NATO troops. In the densely populated Yugoslavia, leukemia symptoms were particularly extensive with radiation levels 10 to 1,000 times above normal. More than 250 Italian soldiers died from cancer-related diseases. As for civilians, here’s just one example. Leukemia rates among new-born babies in former Yugoslavia have soared from one per 1,000 prior to NATO’s uranium attacks to between 10 and 15 per 1,000 now.
Is there any point in using radioactive shells in Libya? Can’t NATO manage without them? Pavel Zolotaryov gives his view:
“There is absolutely no point in that. It could be that the Americans have something to test, considering the tasks they need to fulfill. But how does all that fit in with the UN resolution on Libya?”
Vladimir Belous agrees:
“At present, there is absolutely no need for using such kinds of shells. Although the quantity of uranium is small, radioactive shrapnel, when penetrating into a human body, creates big problems for the treatment of the wounded.”
The aim of the UN resolution on a no-fly zone over Libya, which took shape before our very eyes, is formulated very precisely: not just shutting the air space but protecting civilians. Nothing beyond that. No one authorized NATO to fight on the side of one warring faction against the other, let alone use depleted uranium shells.
Even if these shells explode in a desert far from residential areas, for many Libyans this is a postponed death sentence. The same happened in Iraq where depleted uranium bombs were also used in a desert. A brief look at cancer statistics in Iraq and former Yugoslavia is enough to imagine what awaits Libyans in the near future.
====
Analyst: Libyans’ Turn For NATO Depleted Uranium Poisoning
http://www.panarmenian.net/eng/world/news/65650/
PanArmenian.net
March 30, 2011
NATO forces use uranium weapons in Libya
There’s a suspicion that armor-piercing, radioactive weapons are being deployed by foreign forces on Libya.
The U.S. says ‘it’s not aware’ that depleted uranium is being used, while the UK is flatly denying it. Political observer Christoph Hoerstel said NATO’s chief members have a habit of using uranium weapons – and it’s likely Libya’s in line.
Naming it a dirty habit, Mr. Hoerstel said that the U.S. used uranium weapons in Iraq, the Balkans and Afghanistan. “Unfortunately Libya is not an exception. If this happens, it will be impossible to keep the Libyan population from suffering. Uranium bombs mean that the genetic code in the people is broken. The nano-particles will give rise to the birth of mutilated children,” he said.
====
Media Question West’s Double Standards In Arab World
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/indepth/2011-03/30/c_13805722.htm
Xinhua News Agency
March 30, 2011
Media question West’s “double standards” in Arab unrest
BRUSSELS: As rebel forces backed by Western coalition air strikes battled for advantage in fierce fighting with Libyan government troops, voices questioning the West’s “selective policy” in dealing with unrest in different countries in the Arab world became louder.
The United States, France, and Britain wasted no time in launching air and missile strikes on Libya just one day after the U.N. Security Council passed a resolution mandating a no-fly zone in the North African country.
Apart from measures to set up the no-fly zone, coalition forces also have pounded armored vehicles, the heavy artillery of Libyan government forces, and a residential compound occupied by leader Muammar Gaddafi.
“The coalition has taken sides. It’s only targeting Gaddafi’s forces, including those that aren’t in direct action against the rebels. We have reports of air strikes against convoys far from the front line. This is a far cry from the U.N. Security Council resolution,” said Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s ambassador to NATO.
Russia, which abstained in the U.N. vote that sanctioned the military operation, has been voicing concern about civilian casualties and excessive use of force since the operation began.
Records showed that more than 100 civilians have been killed in the coalition bombardments declared to protect innocent Libyan people.
A sharp contrast to what took place in Libya, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates sent troops to quell opposition street protests in Bahrain.
The double standard is obvious in the Saudi behavior, said an article on the CNN website.
“In the eyes of many Arabs in the region, a deeply troubling Western double standard is emerging,” said Omer Taspinar, a professor at the U.S. National War College and director of the Turkey Project at the Brookings Institution.
According to Taspinar, many in the region are asking a simple question: Why is the West willing to intervene in Libya, while there is total Western silence about Bahrain?
In countries like Libya, Egypt and Tunisia, they accept or actively support constitutional changes, but in other Arab countries, like Bahrain, the rights of citizens are secondary to wider energy and security needs, Taspinar cited an analyst from Lebanon as saying.
Chanting its universal values, “the United States has often been unable or unwilling to live up to the values it preaches,” said Bernd Debusmann, a Reuters columnist.
So why Libya and not Yemen or Bahrain, asked Debusmann.
“Here is where lofty talk of universal values collides with self-interest,” he said.
Debusmann cited a speech by former U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, in a 2005 speech in Cairo: “For 60 years, my country, the United States, pursued stability at the expense of democracy … here in the Middle East.”
Debusmann went on to explain U.S. favor for the current Yemeni President Ali Abudullah Saleh by quoting a recently disclosed cable from the U.S. Embassy in the Yemeni capital that said “Saleh has provided Yemen with relative stability.”
U.S. President Barack Obama has left “more questions than answers about his emerging ‘Obama doctrine and what it means for other crisis in the Middle East,’” Reuters writer Matt Spetalnick wrote about the president’s speech Monday night.
“Embedded in Obama’s televised response to critics of his Libya policy on Monday night was an attempt to set forth his rationale for intervening militarily in some conflicts but not in others,” Spetalnick said.
Obama fell short of even mentioning Yemen, Syria or Bahrain, the latest hotspots of chaos in the Arab world, observed Spetalnick.
Obama is trying to “stake out a middle ground” on wider Middle East policy, said Spetalnick. The obscurity has already drawn a lot of criticism from the left and the right at home, he said.
====
Syria Blames Outside Forces For Unrest
http://en.rian.ru/world/20110330/163289958.html
Russian Information Agency Novosti
March 30, 2011
Assad blames Syria unrest on foreign plotters
Damascus: In his first address since the outbreak of anti-government protests in Syria, President Bashar Assad blamed foreign and domestic “conspirators” for the unrest.
Protests demanding radical change have been raging in Libya since March 15. Tens of people have died so far. The Syrian leadership pledged last week to implement economic and political reform. On Tuesday, Syria’s cabinet resigned in an attempt to appease demonstrators.
Assad said the aim of the conspirators was to “fragment and bring down Syria” and “enforce an Israeli agenda.”
The Syrian president slammed what he called foreign “plots hatched against our country,” saying that the people and leadership of Syria would overcome them.
“We should draw a lesson from what has happened,” Assad noted.
====
Brzezinski Blasts Germany, Poland For Lukewarm Support Of Libyan War
http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14953281,00.html
Deutsche Welle
March 30, 2011
Brzezinski criticizes German and Polish stance on Libya
In an interview with Deutsche Welle, former US National Security Adviser Zbigniew Brzezinski calls Berlin’s abstention in the Security Council an unfortunate decision. He’s also critical of Poland’s stance on Libya.
Zbigniew Brzezinski served as US National Security Adviser to President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981 and has also advised Barack Obama on foreign policy. He is a counselor and trustee at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and a professor of American foreign policy at Johns Hopkins University in Washington, DC.
Deutsche Welle: Germany, in a move that surprised many allies, decided to abstain in a UN Security Council vote on establishing a no-fly zone over Libya, siding with China and Russia, instead of its traditional allies France, Britain and the US. What’s your assessment of Berlin’s decision and the motives behind it?
Zbigniew Brzezinski: I think the motives behind it are understandable and credible and obviously rooted in Germany’s historical experience. However, from a strategic point of view I think it was an unfortunate decision. It seems to me that the crisis involving Libya is a crisis that provides the West with a rather unique opportunity for united action and I would have been more pleased if Germany had chosen to be in some fashion part of it, even if not necessarily a direct military participant.
I may say in passing that I feel the same way about the somewhat passively neutral stand that Poland has taken on this issue. And for obvious reasons I have an interest in observing how Poland conducts itself in the international arena.
….
I think it was unfortunate that for whatever reasons Germany took that stance, because I think what is involved here is a missed opportunity to underline, to affirm something that is desirable and important, namely the ability of the West to act in common.
You have supported military action against Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. But isn’t there a real danger that this protracted conflict could drag on for a long time and turn into a slippery slope that makes NATO ground troops necessary to finally end the violence?
The more united the West is, the shorter the conflict will be. Because obviously Gadhafi and his associates want to prolong the conflict, create a stalemate and in some fashion remain in power. So it’s not irrelevant to the outcome how united the West is and how determined it is. I think if it is determined and if it applies its military efforts with some degree of firmness bearing in mind that the UN resolution permits all necessary actions I think the chances are that we will avoid a protracted conflict.
I think the only possible outcome that assures security for Libyan people and their freedom of choice politically is an outcome that does not include him as part of the political picture.
While the West is engaged in Libya, it appears that many other Arab regimes are also on the brink of collapse. Do you also consider the intervention in Libya as a warning shot for other Arab rulers as the French President has said?
I think each case has to be looked at on its own merit in terms both of the possibilities of responding effectively to it and also in terms of the dangers that a particular case poses for the region and for international stability more generally. So I don’t think that you can draw some sort of arbitrary conclusion from one single case important though it is.
The situation in Syria, a key country in the Middle East, seems very volatile. How strong is Assad’s grip on power in your assessment and what would his fall mean for the region?
It’s very difficult for me to assess how strong is grip on power is, especially since it appears that he himself perhaps doesn’t know how strong it is….
The governments in Bahrain and Yemen, two vital US allies, also look very fragile. Can the US square the circle to support the democracy movements and at the same time prop up or help those autocratic rulers stay in power?
I think as I said each case has to be looked at on its own merits and in the context of its own specificity. In general, the United States has gone quite far in expressing its support for democratic movements. But the circumstances in each of these countries are not quite the same as they have emerged in Libya and for that matter they are not quite the same as they are now in Egypt or in Saudi Arabia.
Compared to the most other countries, the situation in Saudi Arabia has been relatively stable so far. Why in your opinion is this so and do you think that the Saudi King can feel ‘safe?’
He probably cannot feel safe entirely in view of what has been happening with his neighbors. Nonetheless, the fact is that the Saudi monarchy seems to have deeper roots in the society. The society still is somewhat more traditional and the country is very rich and the political leadership is intelligently sharing some of that wealth with the public. Whether that is sufficient to a degree only time will tell.
….
What’s your take on Iran, also a country where there have been some protests, but compared to other countries in the region, the situation there appears to be reasonably calm at the moment?
We have to bear in mind that there was a major outburst of democratic aspirations not such a long time ago and that it was effectively crushed by the regime….The urban parts, particularly in Tehran itself, are more similar to Turkey and through Turkey even to Europe. Certainly the young people who were demonstrating against the regime not such a long time ago looked very similar both in their appearance, but also even in their aspirations and language to the young people in Europe.
….
In the long run, I think that kind of theocratic, fundamentalist authority is as vulnerable or even more so than the hereditary royal systems. So that in the long run – provided the West does not isolate Iran to the point that Iranian nationalism is fused with fundamentalism – I think Iran will have to change and will change.
…NATO is a defensive alliance. If something happened that threatened its members, which includes the United States also, it would be duty bound to respond.
Germany has said that it wouldn’t take part in any military mission in Libya. Could Germany do anything else in your opinion to perhaps support the mission with nonmilitary means? Do you have any ideas what Berlin could do?
I don’t have any ideas that I want to propound publicly. But certainly Germany has ways of indicating its solidarity and its support for what is being done by the NATO alliance of which Germany is a very very important member….
Interview: Michael Knigge
Editor: Rob Mudge
====
Argentine President Condemns NATO’s War In Libya
Reuters
March 30, 2011
Argentine President slams NATO for Libya mission
Buenos Aires, Argentina: Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez visited his Argentine counterpart Cristina Fernandez to sign a raft of oil transport and other agreements on Tuesday (March 29).
….
Chavez spoke of progress in bilateral relations between the two South American countries.
But President Fernandez struck out against NATO in a thinly veiled attack on the mission in Libya.
Chavez has previously denounced military action in Libya, saying it is aimed at seizing the North African country’s oil reserves.
“When someone looks at the world, and observes the people who are supposed to be civilized resolving their problems by launching bombs, it really makes me proud to be South American and proud to be part of [the] UNASUR [political bloc] and to honor this tradition of peace and harmony that we have here in our beloved home of UNASUR,” Fernandez said.
Later, the two visited one of South America’s largest ship repair yards.
Tandanor is run by a workers cooperative and will build 16 new oil tankers for the Venezuela’s state oil company PDVSA, after a new contract was signed by Fernandez and Chavez at the site.
The tankers will cost US$83 million, measure 90 metres (295 feet) in length and have will each be able to ship between 2,500 and 7,500 cubic metres of petrol, according to the Argentine government.
Venezuela signed an agreement with Argentina last year to renovate its oil transport fleet, and includes the construction of tug boats and repair of various vessels.
====
Sweden Accedes To NATO Demand, To Deploy Eight Warplanes For Libyan Campaign
http://www.thelocal.se/32886/20110329/
The Local
March 30, 2011
Government yes to Gripen deployment
The Swedish government has given the green light to sending JAS Gripen fighters to Libya following a request from the NATO general secretary, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, for Swedish assistance.
During an extra meeting Tuesday the government decided to propose to the Riksdag that Sweden contribute to the NATO led military attack on Libya.
“The government has decided today … to put to parliament the proposal to participate with JAS Gripen (jets) in the international military operation in Libya under the leadership of NATO,” Prime Minister Fredrik Reinfeldt said in parliament on Tuesday.
….
Reinfeldt informed the Riksdag that there were many among the government parties who had wanted the fighters to be allowed to strike against land-based targets to protect civilians.
….
The government proposed eight JAS Gripen fighters to be sent, along with one Hercules aircraft and one reconnaissance plane.
In addition to the aircraft, around 130 personnel, including pilots and ground crew will be involved in the mission. However, the number of service personnel may be increased to a maximum of 250.
The government proposes to deploy the aircraft initially for three months. The cost to Sweden is not to exceed 200 million kronor ($31 million).
….
Sweden is not a member of NATO, although it has been in NATO’s Partnership for Peace programme since 1994 and participates in the alliance’s International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) force in Afghanistan with some 500 troops.
The last time Swedish fighter jets were in action was at the start of the 1960s, in a UN-mandated operation in the former Belgian Congo.
The Gripen fighter jets are made by Swedish defence group Saab, which is in the running with France’s Dassault and the US’s Boeing for a multi-billion-dollar contract to supply the Brazilian air force.
….
The Swedish Riksdag could be ready to reach a decision Friday.
====
NATO Orders Bulgarian Warship To Libyan Waters
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/30/c_13805590.htm
Xinhua News Agency
March 30, 2011
Bulgaria sends frigate to patrol near Libya
SOFIA: The Bulgarian government here on Wednesday decided to send the frigate Drazki (Daring) to support the arms embargo against Libya.
According to the Government Information Service, Drazki would participate in the NATO’s operation Unified Protector aiming to patrol the approaches to Libyan territorial waters to reduce the flow of arms, related material and mercenaries to Libya.
The frigate would sail to the area of operation as early as April 15 for not more than three months since its deployment. Up to 160 people, including a 12-member group for special operations, would be on board.
Bulgarian troops would provide visible and significant contribution to the NATO joint efforts demonstrating determination and unified will…the government said.
====
NATO’s Assault On Libya: 1,800 Sorties, 214 Cruise Missile Attacks
Agence France-Presse
March 29, 2011
For no-fly zone, four NATO sorties: US military
-As part of “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” the US military also launched 22 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the past 24 hours, bringing to 214 the total number of missile strikes since the operation began on March 19, the Pentagon said.
WASHINGTON: Enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya required four sorties by NATO aircraft in the past 24 hours, the Pentagon said Tuesday.
As of 1000 GMT, NATO carried out four flights to police the no-fly zone against the Libyan regime, along with four other sorties in support of the mission, according to information released by the Pentagon.
The figures followed comments from US and allied commanders that the regime’s air defenses have been knocked out in earlier coalition raids, with Moamer Kadhafi’s aircraft effectively shut down under a no-fly zone now firmly in place.
The four no-fly zone sorties were flown by Canada and Spain, using F-18 fighter jets, said a US defense official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
NATO is due on Thursday to take over from the US military the command of the coalition air campaign, launched under a UN resolution to protect civilians.
As part of “Operation Odyssey Dawn,” the US military also launched 22 Tomahawk cruise missiles in the past 24 hours, bringing to 214 the total number of missile strikes since the operation began on March 19, the Pentagon said.
The Tomahawks targeted “storage facilities” for the Libyan regime’s Scud missiles, the defense official said.
The international coalition carried out a total of 200 sorties in the past 24 hours, with about 60 percent of the missions flown by the American military.
During the same period, the international coalition carried out 115 strike sorties, in which combat aircraft sought out targets in Moamer Kadhafi’s armed forces.
Since the air operation began on March 19, the coalition has carried out 1,802 sorties.
President Barack Obama’s administration has said it will soon play more of a supporting role in the air campaign.
The number of “strike” missions by US aircraft has declined slightly in recent days.
In the past 24 hours, the United States conducted 52 sorties, about 45 percent of all the strike flights, compared to 63 percent flown by other countries.
====
70 Percent Of Britons Fear New Iraq-Style War In Libya
http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFLDE72S08220110329
Reuters
March 29, 2011
Britons fear Libya becoming another Iraq – poll
Seven of 10 Britons fear Iraq-style conflict
LONDON: Seven out of 10 Britons think coalition forces enforcing a no-fly zone in Libya could get sucked into another Iraq-style conflict, a poll showed on Tuesday.
The ComRes poll carried out for the Independent newspaper found 47 percent think the government was wrong to launch air strikes against Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, while 43 percent approve of the decision.
Tuesday’s poll found that 71 percent of those questioned feared the intervention could drag on, despite Prime Minister David Cameron insisting that Libya is “not another Iraq”.
Respondents’ views were split along party political lines. A majority (58 percent) of Conservative voters, the leading voice in the coalition government, backed the intervention, while coalition partner Liberal Democrats and opposition Labour were less supportive.
A ComRes/ITN poll undertaken a week ago found that 43 of the public disagreed with the action, suggesting opposition was hardening.
ComRes interviewed a random sample of 1,000 adults by telephone between March 25 and March 27.
(Reporting by Stefano Ambrogi; Editing by Michael Roddy)
====
NATO’s Top Military Commander: Foreign Stabilization Force In Libya
Voice of America News
March 29, 2011
NATO Commander Says Libya May Need Foreign Stabilization Force
Al Pessin
The top NATO military commander says Libya may need a foreign stabilization force if rebels supported by international airstrikes succeed in ousting the country’s leader, Moammar Gadhafi. U.S. Navy Admiral James Stavridis made the comment in an appearance Tuesday before the Senate Armed Services Committee.
Admiral Stavridis says there has been no discussion at NATO of sending ground forces to stabilize Libya, but he believes it may be necessary.
“When you look at the history of NATO, having gone through this, as many on this committee have, with Bosnia and Kosovo, it’s quite clear that the possibility of [the need for] a stabilization regime exists,” he said. “And so, I have not heard any discussion about it yet, but I think that history is in everybody’s mind as we look at the events in Libya.”
….
He predicted that the military operation, plus international diplomatic and financial pressure and attacks by the rebels, will likely result in Gadhafi’s departure or overthrow.
And he said even without the specific mission to oust Gadhafi, NATO forces are operating under sufficiently broad rules that they can attack wherever necessary in Libya.
“I think that any Gadhafi forces that are demonstrating hostile intent against the Libyan population are legitimate targets,” said Stavridis.
….
The admiral’s’ NATO forces have taken command of the arms embargo and no-fly zone enforcement from U.S. Africa Command, and he says NATO will take command of the humanitarian and protection of civilians effort within the next day or two….
====
Videos And Text: Obama Establishes Doctrine Around Libya
http://rt.com/usa/news/obama-libya-doctrine-usa/
RT
March 29, 2011
Obama sets doctrine on Libya
In a televised international speech US President Barack Obama spoke for nearly a half hour on the NATO lead, US backed coalition at war in Libya.
The speech focused on Libya as opposed to grander strategy, emphasizing America’s responsibility as a global leader and the specific Libyan intervention.
“To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are,” the US President said. “Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as president, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.”
Although the details were sketchy, no vision of an endgame was given and many things remain unknown or elusive, one thing is for sure in Obama’s mind – Libya will not be another Iraq.
The US president wants to topple Gaddafi, but swore he would not fall at the hands of US troops. Obama insisted American involvement would end as soon as possible – whenever that may be.
“Broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake,” he stated.
The man who campaigned on an anti-war and pro-diplomacy platform has found himself answering his formed supporters who want to know when Obama shifted his views.
“I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars,” Obama exclaimed, expressing his disapproval of Iraq, but support for his war in Libya. “I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests.”
The Obama doctrine is revealed – use force when I deem necessary.
However, some critics feel his approach does not go far enough.
“If we tell Gaddafi, ‘Don’t worry you’re not going to be removed by force,’– I think that’s very encouraging to Gaddafi,” Republican Senator John McCain told CNN.
On the other side of the spectrum, many Democratic leaders felt the lack of clarity and specific endgame goals was too similar of Iraq and Afghanistan.
“Congress needs to ask some tough questions about the endgame,” said Brian Katulis, a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.
Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich blasted Obama for his stance on Libya, saying “The economy is falling apart. Our cities are starved.
People are without health care. All we’re getting is war.”
He argued Libya could easily become Obama’s Iraq and has even proposed, along with Republican Congressman Ron Paul, legislation to defund the entire operation.
“The only real power Congress has here to assert itself as the people’s representatives is to stop funding,” Kucinich said.
The war power belongs to the democratic body, to the Congress, he explained. The US Constitution is clear.
Even President Bush went before Congress to get permission to enter into war with Iraq, he noted.
In addition, Kucinich explained using the military in conflict mode for humanitarian aid simply does not work.
“There’s no way you can avoid civilian casualties,” he said. “What we’re doing here is enlarging a humanitarian crisis with more people becoming refugees, with more civilians put at risk of injury or death due to the bombing.”
In order to get involved in a conflict congress must have a say – even if the conflict is by way of the UN, NATO or other organizations. This is the law of the United States, he explained.
As more and more people seek information on Obama’s war in Libya, it is becoming harder to get factual information from on the ground beyond what NATO and coalition governments claim.
Veteran war correspondent Keith Harmon Snow explained the US and coalition forces are leading an imperialist information war, targeting journalist and preventing truth from being told in Libya.
“Most journalists are not honest,” he said, explaining they are forced to tell half truths.
Journalists are embedded with one side or the other and what they can say is censored by the powers that be. Thus, no one really reports what might actually be going on or what motives may be at play in Libya.
The inability to tell the truth or report all the facts prevents the public from knowing why America may really be in Libya – humanitarianism, access to resources or imperialism.
Radio host Alex Jones argued the war is full of classic propaganda and misinformation, and the US has no business being involved.
The same formula that was used in past interventions is playing out again, he said. Even al-Qaeda is part of the mix. Jones argued the terrorist organization was created by the CIA. It is all part of a major globalist agenda to take away American liberties.
“British Special Forces, US Special Forces were there [Libya] before this began,” said Jones. “The west is setting a precedent through the UN that they can fund rebels to start wars against regimes not favorable to the globalist system.”
Libya is just another piece of the puzzle. It is the beginning of a new front of a global war – it is not humanitarian.
This has nothing to do with humanitarianism, Jones argued. It is about the new world order and their army – al-Qaeda – which is used to strike at America, Russia and others to progress the globalist agenda.
====
France Sends Envoy To Libyan Rebel Base: Report
http://news.xinhuanet.com/english2010/world/2011-03/30/c_13803989.htm
Xinhua News Agency
March 30, 2011
France sends envoy to Libyan rebels base in Benghazi: press
PARIS: France has sent an envoy to Benghazi in eastern Libya where the rebels are based, local press quoted an unnamed official on Tuesday as saying.
According to AFP, the veteran French diplomat Antoine Sivan, 55 years old and an Arabic speaker, departed France on Sunday and was on the way to Benghazi via Egypt.
Benghazi is the stronghold of Libyan rebels and now locates their rebel administration National Transition Council (NTC), which France has taken the lead to recognize as the unique legitimate body to represent Libya people.
France has expressed the intention to dispatch an “ambassador” to the rebels’ base in Benghazi after two rebel representatives had a talk with President Nicolas Sarkozy in Elysee Palace on March 10. French foreign ministry later on received rebel representatives one more time and said they had regular contacts with the rebels’ body.
There was no official confirmation from the French administration about the “ambassador,” but local press said a possible confirmation could be unveiled on the sidelines of the Libya-focused international meeting hosting over 35 nations in London.
….
====
Qatar Launches Television Channel For Libyan Insurgents
http://en.rian.ru/trend/libya_2011/
Russian Information Agency Novosti
March 30, 2011
Libyan opposition launches TV channel with Qatar
The Libyan opposition is launching a satellite television channel, Ahrar TV, on Wednesday with the help of the Qatari government in counterbalance to state-controlled media.
====
Stavridis has spoken! Following the thundering success of the NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo, here we go again with boots on the ground, no UN permission needed.
Strutting Sarkozy is now rebellious, with an ambassador to the anti-government side in a civil war. How France has fallen under this strutting peacock.