From Homeland Security NewsWire:
Libya update
Air dominance is achieved, but confusion of goals deepens
Published 23 March 2011
As the coalition forces achieve air dominance over Libya, the lack of clarity over the campaign's goals becomes even more apparent; the Security Council authorized the use of force to prevent Gaddafi from killing a large number of civilians, and U.S. and French planes were thus within the UN mandate when they attacked Libyan ground units trying to attack rebels' positions; but if the rebels go on the attack against the Libyan military, would coalition forces provide close air support? Would the coalition begin to arm and train the rebels -- because if they do not, then Gaddafi will not be dislodged from power; as importantly: the support for Gaddafi comes from certain tribes, and the opposition to him is also tribal, although not exclusively so; we should not delude ourselves: if the rebels gain the upper hand, we should expect massacres and atrocities to be committed by some rebel groups against members of tribes loyal to Gaddafi; what do the coalition forces do then? Their mandate is the prevent the wholesale killing of civilians, but does this mean killing by Gaddafi loyalists only, or is the mandate broader than that?
Civilians inspect burned-out Libyan army tanks // Source: calgaryherald.com
The U.S. and allied forces on Tuesday continued their attacks on the forces of the Libyan government, and have achieved air dominance over the country. There are five questions about the campaign to which we do not have answers – and it appears that to some of these questions, the leaders of NATO do not have answers, either:
1. Have the U.S. and allied forces mostly attacked the Libyan air defenses and air force, or were the attacks also aimed at degrading Gaddafi’s command, control, and communication systems more generally? The answer to this question is important, because it will tell us to what extent the coalition forces are trying to weaken the Gaddafi’s regime hold on power, as opposed to the more limited goals of preventing his air force from attacking the rebels.
2. There were a few attacks by U.S. and French planes on Libyan military units which attacked rebels in and around cities in east Libya. Libyan military units which did not try to engage the rebels were not attacked. Here the question is similar to question #1: if the Libyan military is not attacked and damaged, then Gaddafi’s hold on power is not weakened. He may not have full control of some areas of his country, but his regime is not threatened.
3. Assuming the rebels receive more weapons and armaments and go on the attack against the Libya military. Will the coalition planes offer close air support (this must come in the context of close military coordination between the rebels and the coalition, though, to prevent costly accidents). If the rebels go on the attack with the support of the coalition, this will materially exceed the UN Security Council mandate, which called for military involvement by the U.S. and others to prevent Gaddafi from wholesale massacre of civilians. The Security Council did not authorize a campaign to topple Gaddafi.
4. The rebels are an uncoordinated, rag tag group of various leanings, without a serious military and without an accepted command structure. They cannot confront and defeat the Libyan military even if that military does not enjoy air cover. A couple of attacks by the rebels on Libyan army stronghold were easily rebuffed. Without unilateral concession by Gaddafi, and without a serious effort to arm and train the rebels, we are heading toward a stalemate. Gaddafi will control most of the country, the rebels will control the rest. What next?
5. The support for Gaddafi comes from certain tribes, and the opposition to him is also tribal, although not exclusively so. We should not delude ourselves: if the rebels gain the upper hand, we should expect massacres and atrocities to be committed by some rebel groups against members of tribes loyal to Gaddafi. What do the coalition forces do then? Their mandate is to prevent the wholesale killing of civilians, but does this mean killing by Gaddafi loyalists only, or is the mandate broader than that?
We should recall the Tutsi RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) did not behave like choir boys when they toppled the murderous Hutu-led government in Rwanda in July 1994. During the short and savage war (6 April-14 July 1994), the Hutus killed about 820,000 Tutsi and some moderate Hutus. The RPF, as it was fighting the Hutu forces, did not always try very hard to avoid killing Hutu civilians, and after the war was over, it did not mind seeing close to two million Hutus flee to neighboring Congo (in fact, in many cases Tutsi forces encouraged Hutus to leave).
If nothing else, the coalition forces should be on guard to make sure that the victims of today do not become the killers of tomorrow.
The latest developments, based on reports by the BBC and Fox News:
On the military front
•Two US airmen have been rescued after ejecting from their F-15E Eagle warplane just before it crashed during allied operations in eastern Libya. The plane appeared to suffer mechanical failure near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the U.S. military said.
•Six villagers were shot and hurt in the U.S. rescue effort.
•Late on Tuesday, renewed explosions and anti-aircraft fire were heard in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.
•Libyan state television reported that Tripoli was “under crusader enemy aerial bombardment” and that several sites had been attacked.
•The Libyan authorities said a naval base at Bussetta, about 10 kilometers (six miles) east of Tripoli, and a fishing village had also been hit.
•Fighting between Col. Gaddafi’s forces and the rebels continued on Tuesday, despite the declaration of a ceasefire by the government:
•The BBC’s Ian Pannell, in eastern Libya, says the rebels there have divergent strategies — some envision pushing west, perhaps even as far as Tripoli, while others want to just take Ajdabiya and then consolidate their hold of the east, hoping Libyans in other cities will rise up and liberate themselves.
Libya update
Air dominance is achieved, but confusion of goals deepens
Published 23 March 2011
As the coalition forces achieve air dominance over Libya, the lack of clarity over the campaign's goals becomes even more apparent; the Security Council authorized the use of force to prevent Gaddafi from killing a large number of civilians, and U.S. and French planes were thus within the UN mandate when they attacked Libyan ground units trying to attack rebels' positions; but if the rebels go on the attack against the Libyan military, would coalition forces provide close air support? Would the coalition begin to arm and train the rebels -- because if they do not, then Gaddafi will not be dislodged from power; as importantly: the support for Gaddafi comes from certain tribes, and the opposition to him is also tribal, although not exclusively so; we should not delude ourselves: if the rebels gain the upper hand, we should expect massacres and atrocities to be committed by some rebel groups against members of tribes loyal to Gaddafi; what do the coalition forces do then? Their mandate is the prevent the wholesale killing of civilians, but does this mean killing by Gaddafi loyalists only, or is the mandate broader than that?
Civilians inspect burned-out Libyan army tanks // Source: calgaryherald.com
The U.S. and allied forces on Tuesday continued their attacks on the forces of the Libyan government, and have achieved air dominance over the country. There are five questions about the campaign to which we do not have answers – and it appears that to some of these questions, the leaders of NATO do not have answers, either:
1. Have the U.S. and allied forces mostly attacked the Libyan air defenses and air force, or were the attacks also aimed at degrading Gaddafi’s command, control, and communication systems more generally? The answer to this question is important, because it will tell us to what extent the coalition forces are trying to weaken the Gaddafi’s regime hold on power, as opposed to the more limited goals of preventing his air force from attacking the rebels.
2. There were a few attacks by U.S. and French planes on Libyan military units which attacked rebels in and around cities in east Libya. Libyan military units which did not try to engage the rebels were not attacked. Here the question is similar to question #1: if the Libyan military is not attacked and damaged, then Gaddafi’s hold on power is not weakened. He may not have full control of some areas of his country, but his regime is not threatened.
3. Assuming the rebels receive more weapons and armaments and go on the attack against the Libya military. Will the coalition planes offer close air support (this must come in the context of close military coordination between the rebels and the coalition, though, to prevent costly accidents). If the rebels go on the attack with the support of the coalition, this will materially exceed the UN Security Council mandate, which called for military involvement by the U.S. and others to prevent Gaddafi from wholesale massacre of civilians. The Security Council did not authorize a campaign to topple Gaddafi.
4. The rebels are an uncoordinated, rag tag group of various leanings, without a serious military and without an accepted command structure. They cannot confront and defeat the Libyan military even if that military does not enjoy air cover. A couple of attacks by the rebels on Libyan army stronghold were easily rebuffed. Without unilateral concession by Gaddafi, and without a serious effort to arm and train the rebels, we are heading toward a stalemate. Gaddafi will control most of the country, the rebels will control the rest. What next?
5. The support for Gaddafi comes from certain tribes, and the opposition to him is also tribal, although not exclusively so. We should not delude ourselves: if the rebels gain the upper hand, we should expect massacres and atrocities to be committed by some rebel groups against members of tribes loyal to Gaddafi. What do the coalition forces do then? Their mandate is to prevent the wholesale killing of civilians, but does this mean killing by Gaddafi loyalists only, or is the mandate broader than that?
We should recall the Tutsi RPF (Rwandan Patriotic Front) did not behave like choir boys when they toppled the murderous Hutu-led government in Rwanda in July 1994. During the short and savage war (6 April-14 July 1994), the Hutus killed about 820,000 Tutsi and some moderate Hutus. The RPF, as it was fighting the Hutu forces, did not always try very hard to avoid killing Hutu civilians, and after the war was over, it did not mind seeing close to two million Hutus flee to neighboring Congo (in fact, in many cases Tutsi forces encouraged Hutus to leave).
If nothing else, the coalition forces should be on guard to make sure that the victims of today do not become the killers of tomorrow.
The latest developments, based on reports by the BBC and Fox News:
On the military front
•Two US airmen have been rescued after ejecting from their F-15E Eagle warplane just before it crashed during allied operations in eastern Libya. The plane appeared to suffer mechanical failure near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, the U.S. military said.
•Six villagers were shot and hurt in the U.S. rescue effort.
•Late on Tuesday, renewed explosions and anti-aircraft fire were heard in the Libyan capital, Tripoli.
•Libyan state television reported that Tripoli was “under crusader enemy aerial bombardment” and that several sites had been attacked.
•The Libyan authorities said a naval base at Bussetta, about 10 kilometers (six miles) east of Tripoli, and a fishing village had also been hit.
•Fighting between Col. Gaddafi’s forces and the rebels continued on Tuesday, despite the declaration of a ceasefire by the government:
•The BBC’s Ian Pannell, in eastern Libya, says the rebels there have divergent strategies — some envision pushing west, perhaps even as far as Tripoli, while others want to just take Ajdabiya and then consolidate their hold of the east, hoping Libyans in other cities will rise up and liberate themselves.
No comments:
Post a Comment