Libyan war has now become a NATO-led war

[The Vegan Marxist]

NATO countries take over Libya no-fly zone
25 Mar 2011

NATO countries have agreed to enforce a no-fly zone in Libya "to protect civilians" against Muammar Gaddafi's forces, Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen told reporters.

He said the military alliance's mandate did not go beyond the no-fly zone but NATO could also act in self-defence.

He appeared to contradict an earlier statement by Ahmet Davutoglu, Turkey's foreign minister, that NATO would take command of all coalition military operations in Libya.

"At this moment, there will still be a coalition operation and a NATO operation," Rasmussen said. "But we are considering whether NATO should take on that broader responsibility in accordance with the UN Security Council resolution, but that decision has not been made yet."

Talks to unite both missions and transfer control of the broader campaign to NATO would continue through the weekend with a decision expected by Monday, NATO officials said.

Until then, the bombing campaign against Gaddafi's tanks and artillery, which kicked off six days ago, will stay in the hands of the coalition led by the United States, Britain and France for the moment.

Rasmussen's announcement followed days of negotiations and a breakthrough on Thursday when Turkey agreed to back the plan.

All 28 members of NATO needed to back any agreement and Turkey had previously rejected backing any plan unless it was given assurances that the operation would be limited to protecting civilians, enforcing an arms embargo and a no-fly zone, and providing humanitarian aid.

Transfer of command

After the announcement of the agreement, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the US was taking the next step in military operations against Libya by transferring command and control of the no-fly zone to NATO.

Clinton said NATO had agreed to protect Libyan civilians, enforce the UN arms embargo on the North African country and support humanitarian aid efforts there.

She also said all members of the alliance had authorised military authorities to develop an operations plan for NATO to take on the broader civilian protection mission under resolution 1973.

She said the coalition action had made "significant" progress in Libya.

"Gaddafi's troops have been pushed back, but they remain a serious threat to the safety" of the Libyan people, she said.

She also praised the United Arab Emirates for becoming the second Arab country after Qatar to send planes to help the mission. The UAE will deploy 12 planes, according to French President Nicolas Sarkozy.

Clinton said she will travel to London next week to coordinate the strategy and military operation against Gaddafi's regime.

The US has been trying to give up the lead role in the operation against Gaddafi's forces.

Washington also pressed for a quick transfer of command to NATO with several key allies, including Britain and Italy, pushing for the alliance to run the show.

Navy Vice Admiral William Gortney told reporters at the Pentagon that the US will continue to fly combat missions as needed, but its role will mainly be in support missions such as refuelling allied planes and providing aerial surveillance of Libya.

No compliance

Meanwhile, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said there were no signs that Gaddafi's government was complying with UN Security Council demands for an immediate cease-fire.

"There is no evidence that Libyan authorities have taken steps to carry out their obligations under resolutions 1970 or 1973," Ban told the Security Council.

He was referring to two council resolutions that called for an immediate end to hostilities and imposed a no-fly zone over the country.

Ban said his special envoy to Libya, former Jordanian Foreign Minister Abdelilah Al-Khatib, had personally warned Gaddafi's government the council may take further steps if Libya did not comply with last week's cease-fire demand by the Security Council in resolution 1973.

"The special envoy emphasised that it was in Libya's best interests to cease hostilities and change the dynamics of the crisis," Ban said. "If Libya did not act, the envoy stated, the Security Council may be prepared to take additional measures."

Council members discussed the crisis in Libya behind closed doors on Thursday but took no action.

Al-Khatib will attend a meeting on Libya in Addis Ababa on Friday hosted by the African Union, Ban said after the meeting.

"Representatives of both the Libyan government and the opposition will attend, I was told, as well as relevant member states and regional organisations," he told reporters.

Ban added the military operations in Libya were not aimed at regime change, but solely to protect civilian.

About 336,000 people have fled Libya since the beginning of the crisis, he said, adding that the UN had contingency plans to deal with as many as 250,000 new refugees.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/af...036894697.html

[Rusty Shackleford]

Yugoslavia
Libya

Two NATO dominated events. Both for the benefit of NATO countries

The US doesnt rely too much on Libyan oil but the EU does. especially western europe.

Germany has broken off from the intervention but Italy, France, and the UK are still extremely active in it. of course, this wouldnt be able to be pulled off without the US 'enabling' them. of all the western militaries, the US is the most capable, and without it, NATO couldnt mobilize the force to do such an intervention.

something like 80% of Italian military bases are in use for the intervention, several in the south of france, and some airbases in the US(for the stealth bombers, i think Whiteman/Whitman AFB)

[Ligeia]

Germany has broken off from the intervention but Italy, France, and the UK are still extremely active in it. of course, this wouldnt be able to be pulled off without the US 'enabling' them. of all the western militaries, the US is the most capable, and without it, NATO couldnt mobilize the force to do such an intervention.

Chancellor Angela Merkel's government approved a plan to send AWACS surveillance planes to Afghanistan in order to free up NATO capacity for operations in Libya. The trans-Atlantic alliance looks set to take over control of the ongoing bombardment of forces loyal to dictator Moammar Gadhafi.

Ramstein airbase is one of two airbases located in Germany and it’s had a strong involvement in Operation Odyssey Dawn.
Ramstein Airbase is where the US Operation Odyssey Dawn began as a humanitarian mission. On March 4th, transport aircraft C-130’s from 37th Air Lift Squadron launched to ferry humanitarian aid and evacuees between Tunisia and Egypt.
On Saturday March 19th the humanitarian mission switched to a ‘use of force’ mission after the UN called for a no-fly zone and Obama tasked US forces to establish it. That included, not transport aircraft from Ramstein, but fighter aircraft from another near-by US air base.

I've also read something about some kind of military coordination center in Hamburg but somehow I can't find it anywhere...so who knows.

[Rusty Shackleford]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...=feeds-newsxml

Deep divisions between allied forces currently bombing Libya worsened today as the German military announced it was pulling forces out of NATO over continued disagreement on who will lead the campaign.


A German military spokesman said it was recalling two frigates and AWACS surveillance plane crews from the Mediterranean, after fears they would be drawn into the conflict if NATO takes over control from the U.S.
The infighting comes as a heated meeting of NATO ambassadors yesterday failed to resolve whether the 28-nation alliance should run the operation to enforce a U.N.-mandated no-fly zone, diplomats said.
Yesterday a war of words erupted between the U.S. and Britain after the U.K. government claimed Muammar Gaddafi is a legitimate target for assassination.
U.K. government officials said killing the Libyan leader would be legal if it prevented civilian deaths as laid out in a U.N. resolution.

But U.S. defence secretary Robert Gates hit back at the suggestion, saying it would be 'unwise' to target the Libyan leader adding cryptically that the bombing campaign should stick to the 'U.N. mandate'.

[Ligeia]

quote

I forgot that.
But they still use those military bases.

The point is everybody has some kind of interests and they seem to be conflicting, as well. But that's needlessly to say.

[Queercommie Girl]

Fuck NATO!

[Sasha]

to show again that the empty worn-out rethorics and simplicitys trown around here have no place in understanding world-politics:

1.56pm: Our diplomatic editor, Julian Borger, has just put up a piece about the handover of operations to Nato.

Nato's Danish secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, announced last night that the alliance has taken over all coalition military operations in Libya "with immediate effect". That makes it sound like the planes flying over Libya today are following Nato orders and operating under newly-agreed rules of engagement. That is not yet the case.
The North Atlantic Council (NAC), Nato's governing body, yesterday issued something called a NAC Execution Directive, which gave the order for a Canadian general, Charles Bouchard, who has been running the no-fly zone since Friday, to assume command of air strikes as well. In fact, Nato sources say that the actual handover of command of this most controversial element of the western role in Libya will not happen for some days. "It should be done by the end of the week," one official said.
The official explanation of the delay is that it will ensure that the handover is completely smooth, but that seems odd. Bouchard is already in place and running other air operations. Whatever the reason for the hold-up, the effect is that the coalition that has been bombing Gaddafi's tanks for the past nine days is still running things.
These operations have been coordinated rather than commanded by the US. In practice, the British and French have been choosing their own targets. For the time being, they can continue to act as the rebels' air force, blowing up pro-Gaddafi forces ahead of the insurgents as they race west along the coastal road.
We do not know what new rules of engagement were agreed in Brussels on Sunday, but it is hard to imagine that the 28 Nato member states, including Turkey and Germany, would have signed off on the very liberal French and British interpretation of the "all necessary measures" to protect civilians in UN security council resolution 1973.
All the signs are that the new rules of engagement will be more restrictive, and not allow Nato pilots to target pro-Gaddafi forces if they do not represent an immediate threat to civilians. Until those rules actually come into operation, the French and British will race to do as much damage as possible to what remains of Gaddafi's military machine.
UPDATE: The Guardian's security editor Richard Norton-Taylor says that British defence officials privately concede that the rules of engagement may be made much more restrictive when Nato takes over. They say Bouchard is expected to give a press conference outlining the new position on Thursday, which may mean he does not actually take command until then.

not to say i support NATO but just to point out that world-politics are complicated as fuck.

[ckaihatsu]

not to say i support NATO but just to point out that world-politics are complicated as fuck.

Actually, that would be a defeatist attitude to have if taken literally....

This flashpoint of Libya is giving us a chance to see how the imperialist powers are lining up in this post-neoconservative / ultra-hawkish, post-2008 financial crisis Bonapartist period -- the rapidly sliding downslope just got bumped further sharply downward, to see all of this international militarist fuss build up so quickly over such a relatively small spot on the globe.

What I'm noticing is that they're lining up differently than during the Bush-era U.S. pull-ahead in the "Coalition of the Willing" against Afghanistan and Hussein's Iraq. Here I think we're seeing more of a conventional, historical-timeline lineup of empires, with Northern Europe rushing into it, along with France, Britain, and the U.S.

Germany and all other imperialist-stragglers and lesser countries are decidedly lagging in enthusiasm and participation, while a schism has been playing out for the lead role, with the U.S. advancing a NATO (U.S. proxy) composition instead of allowing France (or Italy) to re-assert past colonialist hegemony over the area.

This may indicate that there's not much left in the world economy to allow for a more economic, *value*-based differentiation -- instead they're having to fall back to the default conventional, traditional historical lineup to determine some kind of ranking among themselves. It's looking like a stark corporate-type mergers-and-acquisitions kind of scavenging, with Libya being the next found entree.

[Rusty Shackleford]

In an interview i just hear on the radio, a BBC reporter asked a British official (MoD?) about the bombings being a defacto airforce for the rebels. and pointed out that if it were solely about civilian protection, would NATO then bomb rebel positions when they launch their attack on Sirte because civilians will die.


Being such a good politician, he sidestepped the question and called it hypothetical and then the reporter asked about a possible bombing of defenses in tripoli which the politician then answered with glee.