Uprising in Libya

[Crossroads Inc.]

Dear god has anyone been following the response on the right about this whole bombing bussines? The hysteria has reached new levels of rampant idocy. I was just watching fox and heard a "round table" of people all going ape sh*t over the fact that America had to act WITH the UN, that Obama doesn't have the balls to go in by himself, that we <GASP> had to take orders from FRENCH military people on this join Mission! It is just unthinkable!

Wern't these the people not more then two days ago bitching that Obama wasn't doing a no fly zone and going in? And now its "Well hes doing it with the UN the big Pansey!"

[Hawkwings]

You're surprised that they found something to complain about?

[Crossroads Inc.]

You're surprised that they found something to complain about?

Not surprised so much as amused. These days the right are a source of entertainment for me, I;ll have fox on if I need a laugh or two.

[TheHammer]

Well, Q's forces could continue to win despite all the missiles we throw on him, forcing the European+American forces to either wash their hands of a failure and watch as he obliterates his own people and razes the cities and salts the Earth--and then calls upon his buddies within the Vast Terrorist Conspiracy to blow up more of our people.

That's a very strong possibility -- he continues to win despite us enforcing the "no fly zone" on tanks -- how's that for mission creep?

I would also worry a bit about his buddies within the VTC [tm]. It's worth noting that Gadhaffi basically ordered the bombing of PanAm 103 in response to El Dorado Canyon. What makes you think he hasn't already ordered retaliation on the Crusader States?

Gadhaffi has to know that any significant retaliation outside of self defense would result in an escalation from the limited curb stomping he's taking now - from which he might possibly retain power, or be allowed to live comfortably in exile - to an all out curb stomping where he stands absolutely no chance.

But then again, maybe he's crazy enough not to care.

[Sea Skimmer]

The head of the Arab League, Amr Mussam, has demented that they´re in conflict with the UN. Apparently they´re cool witht the bombing runs after all...

From what I've seen, they got real concerned that we would have had to have killed some civilians with those initial strikes, since no signs of that showed up they've backed down from complaining. Also the Qatar and the UAE have now committed planes formally. Amazingly even Gaddafis own propaganda machine only claimed 64 people were killed by the 110 Tomahawk strike. That supports what I was saying and thinking earlier, that most of the SAM sites did not even have crews left, or only a few loyal idiots to keep the radar power on so it looks like the site in service.

[Skylon]

Dear god has anyone been following the response on the right about this whole bombing bussines? The hysteria has reached new levels of rampant idocy. I was just watching fox and heard a "round table" of people all going ape sh*t over the fact that America had to act WITH the UN, that Obama doesn't have the balls to go in by himself, that we <GASP> had to take orders from FRENCH military people on this join Mission! It is just unthinkable!

Wern't these the people not more then two days ago bitching that Obama wasn't doing a no fly zone and going in? And now its "Well hes doing it with the UN the big Pansey!"

I heard three of four laments of..."Now we're involved in Libya? How did that happen?! We're not even out of Iraq or Afghanistan! How can we be spending money on another war?" at work today. As observed by some here, these are probably the same people whom if we did nothing would be crying about the genocide and lamenting "how could we have allowed this to happen?"

The Right can go fuck itself. Obama's fucked either way in their book. Do they really want to see the U.S. take full ownership of another military conflict? Considering the economic climate, and Americans jaded views about involvement in military actions (thanks to G.W. Bush's bang up job of leading us into Iraq), it's ballsy of Obama to be doing anything. This shit is exactly why the U.N. was created, and for once its doing its job, and the U.S. is doing its part as a member nation.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Slightly surprised the rebel army has not gone on a more aggressive counter-offensive yet. I wonder what kind of manpower and organisation they have at the moment and if we're liable to see any more defections.

[MKSheppard]

Dear god has anyone been following the response on the right about this whole bombing bussines?

I like how we threatened to sink the Libyan navy if it left port; and how the french blew up a bunch of tanks.

I was unaware that tanks or ships could fly.

(Yes, I know the resolution had weasel words authorizing necessary use of force, but it was sold to the world and public as a No Fly Zone.)

But after about eight years of demagogery by the left on anything Bush did militarily, it's irrestible to let Obama twist in the wind a bit over on the right.

[Hawkwings]

I believe that the intent changed from no fly zone to just air support when Gaddafi flagrantly ignored the cease-fire. Although I think the no fly zone would have evolved into the air support zone anyways, but there was an external motivator behind it.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Slightly surprised the rebel army has not gone on a more aggressive counter-offensive yet. I wonder what kind of manpower and organisation they have at the moment and if we're liable to see any more defections.

Much of it got pasted in Gaddafi's one-sided ass-kicking contest, with more than a few defecting regular army officers trying to disappear. The rebels did try to retake Ajdabiya, and got thrown right back out again. So . . . right now, I imagine they're regrouping; and hopefully taking some lessons from the Egyptian advisors we know are slinking around the region.

[weemadando]

So . . . right now, I imagine they're regrouping; and hopefully taking some lessons from the Egyptian advisors we know are slinking around the region.

The phrase "advisors" in this kind of context is so ridiculous, but hilarious. Because they are hardly ever just "advising".

Usually, they're advising the shit out of enemy convoys or patrols.

[Block]

No, most of the time they train and observe, maybe plan. They don't get directly involved so that they can't be can't be captured and used as propaganda.

[weemadando]

Apparently Qaddafi's sixth son had just died as a result of a suicide/kamikaze job by an ex (in both senses of the word) Libyan Air Force pilot against the barracks where he was based.

[Pelranius]

Well, I've heard about that but the problem is that only one Arab news outlet, the Al Manara, reported it and I think there's a good chance it might be rebel propaganda.

[madd0ct0r]

I read that 'ex' as the third meaning, and spent a happy 30seconds wondering if it was a female fighter pilot or if the son was gay.

[Pu-239]

A US F-15E has crashed

The two crew members on the F-15E fighter jet ejected to safety. One has already been recovered by US forces, who say they are in the process of rescuing the other.

It is understood that at least one of the crew members was initially rescued by rebel Libyan soldiers after ejecting from the aircraft.

The crashed plane was discovered by a Telegraph journalist reporting in and around Benghazi, the rebel-held city.

It is thought the F-15E fighter jet came to ground after suffering a mechanical failure.

The US military confirmed that one of its jets had crash landed but said that it had not been shot down.
Related Articles

Libyan residents discover wreckage of US plane
22 Mar 2011

Cameron: 'I think Libya needs to get rid of Gaddafi'
21 Mar 2011

Ministers contradict general over Col Gaddafi attack
21 Mar 2011

Arab failure to join attack raises doubts over support
22 Mar 2011

Cameron: we helped to avoid a bloody massacre
22 Mar 2011

US fighter jet crashes in Libya: profile of the F-15E
22 Mar 2011

Vince Crawley, a spokesman for the US military's Africa Command, said that one crewman had been recovered and one was "in process of recovery".

Both crew members suffered minor injuries.

Crawley said the crash occurred "overnight." He declined to give the location of the incident and also would not say how the rescued crewman was picked up.

This is the first coalition aircraft to have crash landed during the Libyan conflict following the third night of air strikes.

The developments comes after British ministers yesterday contradicted senior military commanders by suggesting that coalition forces in action over Libya can legitimately target Colonel Muammar Gaddafi.

The Chief of the Defence Staff, Gen Sir David Richards, flatly insisted that seeking to hit the Libyan dictator was not allowed under the terms of United Nations Security Council resolution 1973.

But after Defence Secretary Liam Fox suggested over the weekend that Col Gaddafi could be a "legitimate target", No 10 sources insisted it was legal to target anyone killing Libyan civilians.

The controversy blew up as Col Gaddafi's compound in Tripoli was hit in a second night of coalition air strikes aimed at suppressing the regime's air defences and command and control structure.

Following a meeting of the newly formed Libya subcommittee of the National Security Council, chaired by David Cameron, Gen Richards was adamant that it was not permitted to target Col Gaddafi.

"Absolutely not. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further," he said.

At a Ministry of Defence briefing, Gen Richards' spokesman, Major Gen John Lorimer, stressed that the international military intervention was in support of the UN no-fly zone.

"It is very clear that, in support of the United Nations Security Council, we are there to implement and enforce the no-fly zone," he said.

"The targets we are attacking are command and control facilities and the integrated air defence system. They are legitimate military targets."

Earlier however, Foreign Secretary William Hague refused to rule out an attack on the Libyan leader.

"I'm not going to speculate on the targets," he told the BBC Radio 4 Today programme. "That depends on the circumstances at the time."

Dr Fox also discussed the possibility at the weekend, although he stressed the need to avoid civilian casualties in any attack.

"Well, that would potentially be a possibility but you mention immediately one of the problems we would have, which is that you would have to take into account any civilian casualties that might result from that," he said.

"And at all times we are very careful to avoid that for its humanitarian reasons, but also for the propaganda reasons that it would provide for the regime itself."

He added: "There's a difference between someone being a legitimate target and whether you would go ahead with targeting."

James Arbuthnot, the Tory chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said Mr Cameron had agreed in the House that the aim of protecting Libya's civilians could not be achieved without the removal of Col Gaddafi.

"We accept that the aim of the resolution is to protect civilians and not to change the regime," he told BBC Radio 4's The World at One.

"Nevertheless we won't be able to protect the civilians in my opinion – and obviously the Prime Minister's and that of most leaders of the countries in the region – while Gaddafi remains in place."

In a statement, a Ministry of Defence spokesman said: "We are not going to go into operational details on military targets.

"Our clear aim is to implement UNSCR 1973 – that means saving lives and protecting the civilian population of Libya."

The talk of targeting Col Gaddafi also appeared to alarm the Americans, with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates warning that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.

"If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect," he said.

"I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve."

Shadow defence secretary Jim Murphy said Dr Fox's comment was "irresponsible in many ways" and could harm efforts to harness Arab opinion in favour of the military effort.

"I support the Government's decision on Libya but I think Liam Fox's comments are irresponsible in many ways," he wrote on his blog.

"His view that the aim of our military effort is to bring about regime change is outside what is a very broad UN resolution.

"It is wrong but also counterproductive at a time when we are trying to maintain a broad coalition, including Arab opinion, to talk in such a way.

"I agree with US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who said, 'If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem'.

"Gaddafi is a tyrant, but it is up to the people of Libya to decide what happens next in their country and not for any single foreign government.

"Our government needs to have one clear policy on this."

He confirmed that he was the Labour figure who told a Sky News reporter that Dr Fox should be "put back in his box".

The MoD would not be drawn on a report in London's Evening Standard newspaper that the cruise missile which hit Gaddafi's compound was fired by a British Trafalgar-class submarine.

"The MoD will not discuss targeting," a spokesman said.

International journalists, who were taken to the scene of a damaged administration block in the compound by Libyan officials, reported seeing smoke rising from the three-storey building and pieces of cruise missile scattered around the area.

About 300 Gaddafi supporters were said to have been in the compound at the time, but it is not known if any were hurt. It was not clear where Gaddafi was at the time of the attack.

Meanwhile, Downing Street published a note on the legal advice given by Attorney General Dominic Grieve which concluded there was "a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives".

Coalition commanders were assessing the impact today of a second night of missile attacks and air strikes on Libyan targets.

RAF Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft made the 3,000-mile round trip from their base at Marham, only to pull out of their bombing run at the last minute after civilians were reported in the target area.

Commanders said the Tornadoes would now be deployed to the Italian airbase of Gioia del Colle, where the Typhoon fighters are already stationed. Four Tornadoes were seen taking off from Marham earlier.

Gen Lorimer said: "We are satisfied that our attacks and those of our partners have been highly effective in degrading the Libyan air defence and command and control capability."

[Pu-239]

Update on the above- according to the Guardian live blog, the second crewman has now also been rescued.

[Lord Woodlouse]

Dear god has anyone been following the response on the right about this whole bombing bussines?

I like how we threatened to sink the Libyan navy if it left port; and how the french blew up a bunch of tanks.

I was unaware that tanks or ships could fly.

(Yes, I know the resolution had weasel words authorizing necessary use of force, but it was sold to the world and public as a No Fly Zone.)

But after about eight years of demagogery by the left on anything Bush did militarily, it's irrestible to let Obama twist in the wind a bit over on the right.

Actually the US was very open about it being more than just a no-fly zone, and that a no-fly zone alone would not cut it. None of these attacks are in the least surprising to me. They're what this resolution was intended for, as it was explained to us in pretty clear language before the voting began.

The only people who acted surprised were the Arab League (and you, apparently) but that seems to have been a simple misunderstanding, because they came back out in support of the measures shortly after.

[MKSheppard]

Barry (as we call him on the HILL) has mailed in his official notification to Kongress of this.

LINK

Dear Mr. Speaker:

At approximately 3:00 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time, on March 19, 2011, at my direction, U.S. military forces commenced operations to assist an international effort authorized by the United Nations (U.N.) Security Council and undertaken with the support of European allies and Arab partners, to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe and address the threat posed to international peace and security by the crisis in Libya. As part of the multilateral response authorized under U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, U.S. military forces, under the command of Commander, U.S. Africa Command, began a series of strikes against air defense systems and military airfields for the purposes of preparing a no-fly zone. These strikes will be limited in their nature, duration, and scope. Their purpose is to support an international coalition as it takes all necessary measures to enforce the terms of U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973. These limited U.S. actions will set the stage for further action by other coalition partners.

United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 authorized Member States, under Chapter VII of the U.N. Charter, to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the establishment and enforcement of a "no-fly zone" in the airspace of Libya. United States military efforts are discrete and focused on employing unique U.S. military capabilities to set the conditions for our European allies and Arab partners to carry out the measures authorized by the U.N. Security Council Resolution.

Muammar Qadhafi was provided a very clear message that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. The international community made clear that all attacks against civilians had to stop; Qadhafi had to stop his forces from advancing on Benghazi; pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misrata, and Zawiya; and establish water, electricity, and gas supplies to all areas. Finally, humanitarian assistance had to be allowed to reach the people of Libya.

Although Qadhafi's Foreign Minister announced an immediate cease-fire, Qadhafi and his forces made no attempt to implement such a cease-fire, and instead continued attacks on Misrata and advanced on Benghazi. Qadhafi's continued attacks and threats against civilians and civilian populated areas are of grave concern to neighboring Arab nations and, as expressly stated

in U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973, constitute a threat to the region and to international peace and security. His illegitimate use of force not only is causing the deaths of substantial numbers of civilians among his own people, but also is forcing many others to flee to neighboring countries, thereby destabilizing the peace and security of the region. Left unaddressed, the growing instability in Libya could ignite wider instability in the Middle East, with dangerous consequences to the national security interests of the United States. Qadhafi's defiance of the Arab League, as well as the broader international community moreover, represents a lawless challenge to the authority of the Security Council and its efforts to preserve stability in the region. Qadhafi has forfeited his responsibility to protect his own citizens and created a serious need for immediate humanitarian assistance and protection, with any delay only putting more civilians at risk.

The United States has not deployed ground forces into Libya. United States forces are conducting a limited and well-defined mission in support of international efforts to protect civilians and prevent a humanitarian disaster. Accordingly, U.S. forces have targeted the Qadhafi regime's air defense systems, command and control structures, and other capabilities of Qadhafi's armed forces used to attack civilians and civilian populated areas. We will seek a rapid, but responsible, transition of operations to coalition, regional, or international organizations that are postured to continue activities as may be necessary to realize the objectives of U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973.

For these purposes, I have directed these actions, which are in the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States, pursuant to my constitutional authority to conduct U.S. foreign relations and as Commander in Chief and Chief Executive.

I am providing this report as part of my efforts to keep the Congress fully informed, consistent with the War Powers Resolution. I appreciate the support of the Congress in this action.

BARACK OBAMA

[Sea Skimmer]

Actually the US was very open about it being more than just a no-fly zone, and that a no-fly zone alone would not cut it. None of these attacks are in the least surprising to me. They're what this resolution was intended for, as it was explained to us in pretty clear language before the voting began.

The only people who acted surprised were the Arab League (and you, apparently) but that seems to have been a simple misunderstanding, because they came back out in support of the measures shortly after.

The Arab League has now gone so far now as to say that the words of Amr Moussa did not represent the opinions of the Arab League as a whole; so the Arab League was not actually surprised either. Everyone wanted Gaddafis tanks bombed before they overran Benghazi and destroyed any rebel alternative save guerrilla warfare. The only real question is why the hell the tanks in the streets of Misratah have not been destroyed before that city falls too. I think no one wants to commit to doing that until the command questions are worked out.

[TheHammer]

Actually the US was very open about it being more than just a no-fly zone, and that a no-fly zone alone would not cut it. None of these attacks are in the least surprising to me. They're what this resolution was intended for, as it was explained to us in pretty clear language before the voting began.

The only people who acted surprised were the Arab League (and you, apparently) but that seems to have been a simple misunderstanding, because they came back out in support of the measures shortly after.

The Arab League has now gone so far now as to say that the words of Amr Moussa did not represent the opinions of the Arab League as a whole; so the Arab League was not actually surprised either. Everyone wanted Gaddafis tanks bombed before they overran Benghazi and destroyed any rebel alternative save guerrilla warfare. The only real question is why the hell the tanks in the streets of Misratah have not been destroyed before that city falls too. I think no one wants to commit to doing that until the command questions are worked out.

Probably the ever present fear of "Civilian casualities".

[EnterpriseSovereign]

Well the Libyan government is blatantly lying about civilian casualties on military targets, especially given how many civilians they themselves have killed.

As for the F-15, seems the chopper sent to rescue the crew fired upon the rebels who came upon the crash site, injuring several of them.

[Sea Skimmer]

A Harrier dropped bombs in-between the rebels and the pilot who was then picked up, rebels got to the WSO first and he was taken out of the country by unspecified means later.

[Zixinus]

That must have sucked for the rebels.
"Oh, hey, I saw a Western jet crash, maybe we should check it out? The pilot may still be alive. Hey, we should get to him before Gaddafi's thugs, we should rescue him. We'll be heroes!"

* a few minutes later *

"OHSHITOHSHITOHSHIT, they're SHOOTING AT US BY ALLAH'S FOOT! WHY ARE THEY SHOOTING AT US? THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HELPING US!"

[FSTargetDrone]

As far as those unfortunate Rebels injured in the rescue, apparently there are no hard feelings (?):

We were having a celebration for the pilot... then they started shooting: Richard Pendlebury reports on Libyans shot by U.S.

By Richard Pendlebury

Last updated at 12:00 AM on 23rd March 2011

They are the first known civilian casualties of the Libyan air offensive – and all they were doing was trying to help allied pilots.

It became clear last night that a rescue mission launched by the Americans to retrieve the crew of a F-15E fighter bomber which had fallen from the sky near rebel-held Benghazi had gone drastically wrong.

Six villagers were in hospital – claiming they were shot by an American plane which had come to pluck the pilot and engineer to safety after they ejected.

One young man may lose a leg.

And it all seems like a horrible mistake. The locals had merely gone to the aid of the U.S. pilots.

At the time of the attack they were trying to take one of the crew to the relative safety of rebel-held Benghazi.

The villagers claimed they were shouting ‘Welcome, welcome Libya’ and trying to offer hospitality to their saviours.

One of the injured men, Hamad Abdul Ati, 43, suffered multiple shrapnel and bullet wounds, and a broken arm.

His 20-year-old son Hamdy’s injuries are more serious according to hospital staff, and he will need to have part of his leg amputated.

Speaking to reporters from his hospital bed, Mr Ati said: ‘If they just stopped shooting, we would have escorted the pilot to safety. We were just trying to have celebration for him.

‘We consider that whoever is shot down or a prisoner of war, we should save him and hand him over. But another plane shot at me and Hamdy my son. I have shrapnel in my hand.

‘We would have just picked the second pilot up and put him wherever he wanted in a safe place. Even the other one, we had a celebration for him.’

It could still be the case that some of the injured were hurt by live ammunition exploding after the plane crashed.

Despite what happened, there was absolutely no animosity or resentment among the hundreds of locals who crowded around the wreck. They simply expressed wonder and gratitude.

‘Tell David Cameron we are very, very happy with him and the aeroplanes,’ I was told by two rubberneckers who could speak English and realized where I was from.

The plane had come down during a ground attack mission on Monday night. U.S. military authorities said it crashed as a result of mechanical failure rather than enemy action.

By last night both Americans were out of Libya and back in allied hands, suffering only from minor injuries.

The airmen’s home base is RAF Lakenheath in Suffolk, but they had taken off on their plane’s final mission from the Aviano Air Base in Italy.

The nearest village to the crash site was Jhout Asultan, which lies 30 miles north east of the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, on the edge of the Green Mountains.

It is possible that Gaddafi loyalist positions on the edge of Ajdabiya had been the doomed aircraft’s target that night.

Certainly, that location was heavily bombed during the hours of darkness on Monday and through yesterday morning.

The two airmen were separated after ejecting from the crippled jet at high altitude and drifting down to different locations, Africa Command spokesman Vince Crawley said.

Locals spoke of hearing at least two aircraft circling before the impact.

The F-15E looked as if it had simply belly landed and then caught fire. There was no suggestion of heavy impact or a high-speed forced landing.

The nose, cockpit section and central fuselage were almost destroyed by the blaze. But the wings and big twin tail fins were still intact, if bent.

Flames had scoured the metal skin of almost all markings. But on the left tailfin one could still see the letters ‘LN’ for Lakenheath and underneath those the number 304. A blue band was painted across the top of the right fin.

This revealed that it was a ‘Strike Eagle’ from the 48th Fighter Wing.

Having landed by parachute the jet’s weapons officer was found by locals. He initially raised his hands in surrender and said ‘OK, OK.’

But on learning that he was not a Gaddafi pilot, as they feared, the Libyans shook the American warmly by the hand.

‘We told him not to be scared,’ one man told me.’ We said “We are here to help you”.’

The pilot was picked up at another location by the Osprey rotary winged search and rescue aircraft. Locals said they could hear at least one other aircraft overhead when the Osprey landed.

I went to the rebel military checkpoint at the small town of Al Abyah, five miles from the crash scene.

This was where the weapons officer had been first taken by his Libyan rescuers. Salim, a rebel fighter, was on guard there when the airman arrived.

‘The American was walking OK, but in shock,’ he said.

‘He kept asking about his colleague. We gave him a cup of tea and some juice and sent him on to the hospital here in Al Abyah. We called the interim government in Benghazi and they contacted the Americans.

‘After that the airman was taken into Benghazi.’

A Pentagon spokesman said last night that an investigation had begun into the report that Libyan villagers were shot and injured by U.S. rescuers.

As the villagers recovered from their ordeal, six frightened men from the other side of the battle were being treated for their wounds.

In a heavily guarded hospital ward in Benghazi yesterday, some of Gaddafi’s troops were recovering after being taken prisoner during the fighting of the last few days.

At least two were victims of allied airstrikes. None, unsurprisingly, were voicing the kind of defiant rhetoric which is coming out of Tripoli.

One man who had suffered a leg injury said he was simply a security guard: ‘I was sent to Sirte from Tripoli to guard the airfield there,’ he explained.

‘Then a number of us were put in vehicle and sent to the frontline in Ras Lanuf. I didn’t take part in the fighting there. But from there I was moved to Ajdabiya and just outside that town my vehicle was hit by an aeroplane.’

He added: ‘Gaddafi is a bad man, with no morals. If you gave me a gun now I would fight him.’

In a bed nearby was a wounded tank driver, captured by rebel fighters in the battles for Benghazi’s suburbs on Saturday.

‘We were all ordered to go to Benghazi,’ he claimed. ‘We had no choice. If we had refused we would have been shot.

There are some good pictures of the wreck at the link. No time to include them here now.