NORTON META TAG

Showing posts with label No Fly Zone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label No Fly Zone. Show all posts

19 March 2011

U.S. Launches Missile Strikes On Libya 18MAR11

WHEN did Congress declare war on Libya? 

President Barack Obama authorized limited military action against Libya on Saturday, saying Moammar Gadhafi's continued assault on his own people left the U.S. and its international partners with no other choice. The Pentagon said 112 cruise missiles were launched from U.S. and British ships and subs, hitting 20 targets.
Obama said military action was not his first choice.
"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy."
Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, told reporters that U.S. and British ships launched more than 100 missiles on Libya air defenses in an effort to lay down protection for a no-fly zone. The missiles targeted Libya's defense system, including "surface-to-air missiles sites, early warning sites and key communication nodes."
Gortney said they hit more than 20 sites along the Mediterranean coastline, but the success of the mission, dubbed Odyssey Dawn, was not immediately clear.
Map of Libya
Obama declared once again that the United States would not send ground forces to Libya, though he said he is "deeply aware" of the risks of taking any military action.
Earlier in the day, Obama warned that the international community was prepared to act with urgency.
"Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency," Obama said.
Top officials from the U.S., Europe and the Arab world were meeting in Paris, where they announced on Saturday immediate military action to protect civilians caught in combat between Gadhafi's forces and rebel fighters. American ships and aircraft were poised for action but weren't participating in the initial French air missions.
As the military action was announced, French fighter jets swooped over Benghazi, the opposition stronghold that was stormed by Libyan government forces earlier Saturday, in defiance of a proclaimed cease-fire.
France, Britain and the United States had warned Gadhafi on Friday that they would resort to military means if he ignored the U.N. resolution demanding a cease-fire.
The United States has a host of forces and ships in the area, including submarines, destroyers, amphibious assault and landing ships.
The U.S. intended to limit its involvement — at least in the initial stages — to helping protect French and other air missions by taking out Libyan air defenses, but depending on the response could launch additional attacks in support of allied forces, a U.S. official said. Both officials spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of military operations.
Among the U.S. Navy ships in the Mediterranean were two guided-missile destroyers, the USS Barry and USS Stout, as well as two amphibious warships, the USS Kearsarge and USS Ponce, and a command-and-control ship, the USS Mount Whitney. The submarine USS Providence was also in the Mediterranean.

Related NPR Stories

Earlier Saturday, the rebel-held stronghold of Benghazi came under heavy bombardment by loyalist forces, despite Gadhafi's claim that he was honoring the cease-fire. In response, French warplanes began attacking selected targets.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy said the allied nations would use "all means necessary, particularly military" to enforce the U.N. mandate.
The French leader said the military action was being taken "to protect the civilian population" from the "deadly madness of a regime which, by killing its own people, has lost any legitimacy."
He said that Gadhafi "still could avoid the worst" by complying with the requirements of the international community.
"The door of diplomacy will open when the fighting stops," he said.
"The future of Libya belongs to the Libyans," Sarkozy said, adding that the intervention was taking place because of "a universal conscience that cannot tolerate such crimes."
Canadian, Italian, Danish and Norwegian planes were also participating in the operation, working out of military bases around the Mediterranean region. However, it was still unclear what role Arab nations would play.
U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon said in a statement Saturday that given the situation on the ground in Libya, "it is imperative that we continue to act with speed and decision."
In an open letter read out hours before the announcement, Gadhafi had a warning: "You will regret it if you dare to intervene in our country."
Fighting In Benghazi
Earlier Saturday, a plane was shot down over the outskirts of Benghazi, sending up a massive black cloud of smoke.
But it was not immediately clear whether the warplane belonged to loyalist or rebel forces.
"If it did indeed belong to the Libyan government ... it would be another sign that [Gadhafi] is in open defiance of the world right now," NPR's David Greene said, reporting from Tripoli.
But rebels told NPR the plane was theirs and that it had been shot down by loyalist forces as it tried to defend the city. Opposition forces are known to have obtained at least some aircraft from pilots who defected from the Libyan air force in the opening days of the conflict.

The World Weighs Libya's Unrest

Witnesses said Benghazi was hit by artillery and mortar fire and an explosion was reported near the rebel headquarters. The Red Cross and other aid groups said there was a sharp increase in the number of civilians trying to leave the city.
Rebel leaders fighting to push Gadhafi from power also said cities such as Misrata and Ajdabiya were still being shelled. A Pentagon official told NPR that the U.S. saw surveillance suggesting Libya's military was still active, firing on areas around the eastern city.
Libya Denies Attacks
Government spokesman Ibrahim Musa denied that a government plane had gone down. He also denied government forces shelled any Libyan towns on Saturday, saying the rebels were the ones breaking the cease-fire by attacking military forces.
"Our armed forces continue to retreat and hide, but the rebels keep shelling us and provoking us," Musa told The Associated Press.
Musa also said the planned U.N. Security Council embargo of Libya's military airspace was "invalid" because, he said, "the Security Council is not authorized according to the U.N. Charter to intervene in the internal affairs of any country."
"This is injustice, it's a clear aggression and there's an uncalculated risk for its consequences on the Mediterranean and for Europe," Musa said.
A Quick End To Weeks Of Debate
In a joint statement to Gadhafi late Friday, the U.S., Britain and France — backed by unspecified Arab countries — said a cease-fire must begin "immediately" in Libya, the French presidential palace said.
The statement urged Gadhafi to end his troops' advance toward Benghazi and pull them out of the cities of Misrata, Ajdabiya and Zawiya. It also called for the restoration of water, electricity and gas services in all areas, and said Libyans must be able to receive humanitarian aid or the "international community will make him suffer the consequences" with military action.
The statement followed a U.N. Security Council resolution offering protection to Libya's citizens late Thursday with the backing of the United States, France and Britain — hours after Gadhafi vowed to launch a final assault and crush the nearly five-week-old rebellion against him.
Western powers faced pressure to act urgently after weeks spent deliberating over what to do about Gadhafi as his regime gained momentum.
"Things really came together quickly at the end," said NPR's Greene said. "There was a sense for days that this might never happen, the debate might continue.
"All sides said the support from the Arab League and potentially the willingness of Arab countries to take part in this lent that final needed support to push this through," he said.
Rebel Forces Falling Back
The shift toward international action reflected dramatic change on the ground in Libya in the past week. The rebels, once confident, found themselves in danger of being crushed by an overpowering pro-Gadhafi force using rockets, artillery, tanks and warplanes. That force has advanced along the Mediterranean coast aiming to recapture the rebel-held eastern half of Libya.
The rebellion began Feb. 15 in Benghazi and spread east to Tripoli. Like other uprisings in North Africa and the Mideast, Libya's protest started with popular demonstrations against its leader, rejecting Gadhafi's four decades of despotic and often brutal rule. The tone quickly changed after the regime's security in Tripoli forcefully put down the gatherings there.
Opposition forces began arming themselves and quickly seized control of the country's east, basing themselves in Benghazi, which is Libya's second-largest city and has a population of about 700,000. Some Libyan army units joined the rebels, providing them with needed firepower, but much less than Gadhafi's remaining forces and, crucially, no air power.
There are no official death tolls. Rebels say more than 1,000 people have been killed in a month of fighting, while Gadhafi claims the toll is only 150.
With reporting from NPR's Eric Westervelt in Tobruk, David Greene in Tripoli, Eleanor Beardsley in Paris and Phillip Reeve in London and Alan Greenblatt. Material from The Associated Press was used in this story.

Libya Live Blog 19MAR11 from AL JAZEERA

THE latest from the Al Jazeera Libya live blog, click the header to go to their blog for the latest news....
[EPA]
Show oldest updates on top
As the uprising in Libya continues, we update you with the latest developments from our correspondents, news agencies and citizens across the globe. Al Jazeera is not responsible for content derived from external sites.
  • Timestamp: 
    1:36pm
    Snipers loyal to Gaddafi have killed two people in Misurata, a resident told Reuters. \
    "We have two people dead this morning ... because there are snipers on some houses and they are shooting people, they are shooting whoever they see," the resident, called Saadoun, told Reuters by telephone.
  • Timestamp: 
    1:23am
    The head of the Libyan National Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil, just denied Libyan state TV reports that defected interior Minister Abdel Fatah Younis has defected the rebels and joined Gaddafi forces again.
    It seems that there is a media war going on between Gaddafi and rebels.
  • Timestamp: 
    1:15pm
    Libyan state TV says that interior minister Abdel Fatah Yunes, who defected to the rebels at the beginning of March, had returned to the Gaddafi camp and to his old job.
  • Timestamp: 
    1:08pm
    Libyan forces loyal to Gaddafi fired artillery shells into the rebel-held city of Misurata and water supplies were still cut off, a resident said.
    "They (Gaddafi's forces) bombed the town with four or five artillery shells in the early hours today. The situation is relatively calm now. But they are still on the outskirts of the town, and water to Misrata is still cut off," the resident, called Mohammed, told Reuters by telephone from the city.
    Libyan government officials deny attacking rebels and say they are observing a ceasefire.
    Reports from Misrata could not be verified independently because authorities in Tripoli have prevented journalists from reaching the city.
  • Timestamp: 
    1:00pm
    Libya's government announced an immediate ceasefire on Friday, but government forces were said to have entered the western edge of the city on Saturday. Al Jazeera's Alan Fisher reports.

  • Timestamp: 
    12:18am
    Here is revised text of the speeches that Gaddafi's spokesman read out:
    The first letter to brother leader to Barack Obama:
    "To our son, his excellency, Mr Baracka Hussein Obama. I have said to you before, that even if Libya and the United States of America enter into a war, god forbid, you will always remain a son. Your picture will not be changed. I want you to remain in the same image. I have all the people of Libya with me, and I'm prepared to die and we have all the men, children and women with me. Nothing more. Al Qaeda is an armed organisation, passing through Algeria, Mauritania and Mali. What would you do if you found them controlling American cities with the power of weapons? What would you do, so I can follow your example."
    Letter to Ban Ki Moon, Sarkozy and Cameron:
    "Libya is not yours, Libya is for the Libyans. The security council, their resolution is void because it is not according to the charter to interfere with the internal affairs of the country. … You have no right. You will regret if you get involved in this, our country. We can never shoot a single bullet on our people, it is Al Qaeda organisation."
  • Timestamp: 
    12:14pm
    A spokesman for the rebel National Libyan Council reported a bombardment on the western town of Zintan by Gaddafi forces and said five shells had fallen on the outskirts.
    The spokesman, who was named only as Adel, was speaking to Al Arabiya television.
  • Timestamp: 
    12:03pm
    Gaddafi spokesman reads out letter to president Obama:
    To Baracka Hussein Obama... I have all the Libyan people supporting me and they are prepared to die for me... I am facing al Qaeda here - what would you do?
    The second letter is to Ban Ki-Moon, president Sarkozy of France and the UK's David Cameron:
    Libya is not yours.. You have no right to intervene into our internal affairs. This is our country, it is not your country. We can never shoot a single bullet onto our people...
    He also warns the world leaders of retaliation if they persist.
  • Timestamp: 
    11:49am
    Abdul Jalil, head of National Libyan Council, also said:
    Now there is a bombardment by artillery and rockets on all districts of Benghazi
    The international community is late in intervening to save civilians from Gaddafi's forces. Today in Benghazi there will be a catastrophe if the international community does not implement the resolutions of the U.N. Security Council.
    We appeal to the international community, to the all the free world, to stop this tyranny from exterminating civilians.
  • Timestamp: 
    11:26am
    Abdul Jalil also tells us that Benghazi hospitals are now being flooded with victims. He says that the pro-democracy fighters do not have enough weapons and numbers to confront Gaddafi:
    "We only have light arms - Gaddafi seems to have new and powerful weapons."
  • Timestamp: 
    11:11am
    Mustafa Abdul Jalil, the head of the Libyan Interim Council, tells Al Jazeera that residential areas in Benghazi are under attack by artillery and tanks. He also said that the plane shot down belongs to the rebels.
  • Timestamp: 
    10:55am
    Al Jazeera's James Bays reporting live from Benghazi:
    We are still hearing gunfire in the distance - I heard an explosion just moments ago from that direction...
    We have seen anti-aircraft guns going along the road in that direction, we have also seen ambulances and medical staff making their way in that direction in the last half hour or so...
  • Timestamp: 
    10:49am
    Blake Hounshell, Managing Editor of Foreign Policy magazine, sent us this footage from today's attack on Benghazi:

  • Timestamp: 
    10:45am
    The Security Council "has acted responsibly to protect and save the lives of defenceless civilians who are faced with brutal acts of violence carried out by the Libyan authorities," the South African foreign ministry says.
    The decision "constitutes an important element for the protection of civilians and the safety of the delivery of humanitarian assistance to those most vulnerable and those desperately in need of such assistance," it said in a statement.
  • Timestamp: 
    10:30am
    The international community must act fast over the situation in Libya, a French government source says.
    "Everything is ready (to act) but the decision is now a political one. It's clear we have to move quickly," the source said, hours before France was due to host an international meeting to discuss military intervention.
  • Timestamp: 
    10:28am
    Pro-democracy fighters have erected concrete barricades on the roads leading to the courthouse building where the rebel National Libyan Council has its base.
    Khalid al-Sayeh, a rebel military spokesman, told Reuters:
    They have entered Benghazi from the west. Where are the Western powers? They said they could strike within hours.
  • Timestamp: 
    10:23am
    Al Jazeera shows pictures of the fighter jet as it was shot down:
    File 16146
  • Timestamp: 
    10:09am
    Picture of the Al Jazeera vehicle that was hit in Benghazi:
    File 16126
  • Timestamp: 
    10:04am
    Artillery shells being shot into Benghazi from about 20km away, Al Jazeera's Tony Birtely reports.
  • Timestamp: 
    9:54am
    Libya's government says that its armed forces are under attack west of the rebel-held stronghold of Benghazi and have responded in self-defence.
    This was issued in a statement carried by the official Jana news agency:
    The gangs of Al-Qaeda attacked the units of the Libyan armed forces stationed to the west of Benghazi.
    The statement accused the rebels of using "a helicopter and a fighter jet to bomb the Libyan armed forces in blatant violation of the no-fly zone imposed by the UN Security Council."
  • Timestamp: 
    9:36am
    Al Jazeera reporters in Benghazi say that their vehicle has been hit by a mortar round - the vehicle was not occupied at the time. Also reports of artillery attacks on Gamal Abdel Nasser street in central Benghazi.
  • Timestamp: 
    9:14am
    Al Jazeera's Tony Birtely says that a plane has been shot down in Benghazi. More details to follow.
  • Timestamp: 
    9:01am
    Reports from Al Jazeera reporter in Benghazi that pro-Gaddafi forces have entered the suburbs of the city.
  • Timestamp: 
    8:51am
    Al Jazeera reporter in Benghazi says some shelling happening now, with a jet just crossing over the town. Reports of some people being injured in the bombing, possibly some deaths.
  • Timestamp: 
    7:29am
    "The explosions started about 2 a.m. Gaddafi's forces are advancing, we hear they're 20kms from Benghazi," Faraj Ali, a local resident, said. 
    "It's land-based fire. We saw one aircraft," he added. 
  • Timestamp: 
    6:49am
    Large explosions were heard in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi, the rebel stronghold, early on Saturday, a Reuters witness said.
    A fighter jet could be heard over the city, the witness said, adding that the explosions were strong enough to shake a building.
  • Timestamp: 
    3:05am
    Speaking after the response by Moussa Koussa, Libya's foreign minister, on Friday, Gaddafi said there was no justification for the UN resolution aimed at ending violence in Libya.
    This is blatant colonialism. It does not have any justification. This will have serious consequences on the Mediterranean and on Europe.
    In 2011 they are colonising us, massacring us, and imposing one no-fly zone after the other and one military attack after another. What is this racism? What is this hatred?
  • Timestamp: 
    1:48am
    Gerard Araud, the French envoy to the UN, said he expects military intervention in Libya within hours of a Paris summit on Saturday.
  • Timestamp: 
    12:40am
    Rebels in Benghazi braced amid rumours that pro-Gaddafi forces were within striking distance of the city and planning an evening assault. Hundreds of men, some on pick-up trucks mounted with machine-guns, flooded out of the city in response to a call from the rebel-run radio to man their posts.
  • Timestamp: 
    12:33am
    A US national security official on Friday said forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, continued to advance towards the eastern rebel stronghold of Benghazi despite the ceasefire proclamation.
  • Timestamp: 
    12:01am
    Welcome to Al Jazeera's live blog for March 19, covering unfolding events in Libya and providing you with up-to-the-minute updates. To catch up on everything that's happened over the last 24 hours, why not check out yesterday's live blog, or our news story, which wraps up developments?

18 March 2011

Obama demands pull-back of Libyan troops; Tripoli declares cease-fire

THIS not out of concern for the lives of Libya's citizens, or in support of their goals of freedom and democracy, but only because Libya has oil and gas the industrial world needs. 

By William Branigin, Liz Sly and Sudarsan Raghavan, Friday, March 18, 3:30 PM

President Obama demanded Friday that the Libyan government move beyond its declaration of a cease-fire in response to a U.N. Security Council resolution and pull its troops back from cities recently captured from rebels.
Saying the terms were “non-negotiable,” Obama said at the White House that longtime Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi “must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull them back from Ajdabiya, Misurata and Zawiyah, and establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas.” Forces loyal to Gaddafi have been closing in on the rebel capital of Benghazi, Libya’s second-largest city, after having already overrun Ajdabiya and Zawiyah. Loyalist forces also have been besieging Misurata on the Mediterranean coast 130 miles east of the capital, Tripoli.
Obama spoke after the Libyan government declared an immediate cease-fire Friday in a bid to head off Western military intervention on behalf of rebels seeking to overthrow Gaddafi, hours after the U.N. Security Council authorized a no-fly zone and the use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians in Libya.
Despite the declaration, Gaddafi’s forces continued pummeling areas of eastern Libya with artillery and airstrikes well after the cease-fire was supposed to take effect. The attacks targeted the areas around Zuwaytinah and Ajdabiya, more than 90 miles south of Benghazi. Jets streaked across the sky firing at targets, at least one helicopter flew low across the desert, and artillery bombardment could be heard for several hours Friday afternoon around Zuwaytinah.
Residents and rebel officials said the assaults continued well after Gaddafi’s government announced a cease-fire Friday afternoon local time.
“Where is the international community?” screamed Mohammed al-Hadar, a rebel fighter. “They are still using airplanes to kill us.”
At least two bodies lay inside a pick-up truck that came from the direction of the fighting. The men appeared to be fighters.
Other fighters withdrawing from Zuwaytinah said Gaddafi’s forces had fired with heavy machine guns at civilians in cars fleeing Ajdabiya. Faraj al-Obeidi said he saw eight civilians, including women and children, who were killed trying to cross the front line by Gaddafi’s forces blocking the eastern entrance to Ajdabiya.
Obeidi said he and his comrades gathered the bodies and covered them with blankets and carpets. “At this moment, the airplanes started bombing and we fled,” said Obeidi. “Their bodies are still along the road.”
Rebel officials said Gaddafi’s forces had no intention of honoring the cease-fire. They said attacks also continued in the western towns of Misurata and Zintan well after the cease-fire was announced.
In his appearance at the White House, Obama stressed in a stern tone that the U.N. resolution’s conditions “must be met.” He said, “The United States, the United Kingdom, France and Arab states agreed that a cease-fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop.”
He said the demands for the pull-back of Libyan troops “are not subject to negotiation.” And he warned that the U.N. resolution “will be enforced through military action” if Gaddafi does not comply.
Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is traveling to Paris on Saturday for a meeting with European partners about enforcement of the U.N. resolution, Obama announced.
He pledged that the United States will not deploy ground troops in Libya, “and we are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians within Libya.”
Earlier, the United States, Britain and France reacted cautiously to the declaration, saying they would judge Gaddafi by his actions. Clinton demanded that Libyan government forces move away from eastern Libya where they have been waging an offensive against rebel-held cities. And U.S. intelligence agencies expressed skepticism about the cease-fire.
Libyan Foreign Minister Musa Kusa told reporters Friday that as a United Nations member, Libya had no choice but to accept the U.N. Security Council resolution.
“Therefore, Libya has decided an immediate cease-fire and the stoppage of all military operations,” he said. He pledged that Libya would protect foreigners and foreign assets in the country.
Kusa also said his government would seek “the opening of dialogue with all channels interested in the territorial integrity of Libya,” suggesting that the regime might be prepared to talk to the rebels if they commit to the unity of the nation. The government has long harbored suspicions that the rebels have separatist intentions.
He said the cease-fire “will take the country back to safety” and ensure the security of all Libyans. But he also criticized the U.N. Security Council’s authorization of military action, which he said violates Libya’s sovereignty.
Musa did not elaborate on his brief statement, leaving unclear exactly what the cease-fire would mean and whether it would apply to other Libyan cities under attack from government forces or only to the front line with rebels in the east. Loyalist forces there are closing in on the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.
The CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have seen evidence of continued fighting despite the declared cease-fire, U.S. officials said. American spy agencies have monitored the violence using intelligence assets ranging from satellites to sources inside the country.
“There are [intelligence] reports out of certain areas that fighting continues,” said a U.S. official with access to classified intelligence on Libya. “There are indications that at least some elements tied to Gaddafi may not have gotten the message on the cease-fire.”
The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to discuss the matter, said the areas of continued fighting include Misurata.
Citing concern about Gaddafi’s intentions, the U.S. official said the cease-fire “should be considered tenuous at best right now.”
The Libyan announcement came after the Security Council on Thursday evening authorized member states “to take all necessary measures . . . to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in [Libya], including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory.” This effectively paved the way for air and naval attacks against forces loyal to Gaddafi, who vowed a merciless assault on Benghazi.
The cease-fire declaration followed a British announcement that it was deploying warplanes to bases from which to start enforcing the U.N. resolution.
In Washington, Clinton told reporters, “Colonel Gaddafi’s refusal to hear the repeated calls up until now to halt violence against his own people has left us with no other choice than to pursue this course of action.”
Speaking after a meeting with her Irish counterpart, she said of the cease-fire announcement, “We are going to be not responsive and impressed by words. We would have to see action on the ground, and that is not yet at all clear.” She added, “We do believe that a final result of any negotiations would have to be the decision by Colonel Gaddafi to leave. But let’s take this one step at a time.”
The first and most urgent priority in Libya “is to end the violence,” Clinton said.
“We have to see a very clear set of decisions that are operationalized on the ground by Gaddafi’s forces to move physically a significant distance away from the east, where they have been pursuing their campaign against the opposition,” she said. “There will have to be an accounting of what has already occurred,” such as “massacres” and abductions, she said.
There was conflicting information Friday on whether Gaddafi’s forces were respecting the cease-fire. In a phone call to CNN, a resident of the rebel-held city of Misurata said shelling by government forces was continuing there after the cease-fire announcement. However, news agencies quoted rebels as saying they repelled a government attack in the morning and that the shelling had stopped. As many as 25 people were killed in the attack involving tank and artillery fire, al-Arabiya television reported. The city, Libya’s third-largest, is the last rebel-held urban area in the western part of Libya.
Gaddafi “will tell the world he has declared a cease-fire, and underground he is going to kill as many as he can and gain territorial advantage to improve his bargaining position,” the unidentified Misurata resident told CNN. “He has to be brought to justice and bombed into submission.”
Kusa’s announcement appeared to mark an abrupt reversal from a bellicose speech delivered the night before by Gaddafi, who threatened an imminent attack on Benghazi and warned residents there that Libyan forces would hunt them down “house by house, room by room.”
It was clear that the Libyan government was caught off guard by the speed with which the Security Council moved to authorize the use of force, after weeks of indecision during which pro-Gaddafi forces made significant advances against the rebels.
As recently as Thursday, officials were confidently predicting that China or Russia would veto the resolution, or that, if it did pass, at least 10 days would be needed to implement and enforce a no-fly zone, giving government forces enough time to retake Benghazi.
But with British and French officials warning that strikes could come within hours of the resolution, the government appeared to have concluded that it had no choice but to back down. Otherwise it would risk significant damage to its already limited military infrastructure from far superior Western forces.
Western powers, meanwhile, were going ahead with plans to enforce the resolution.
In London, British Prime Minister David Cameron said in reaction to the cease-fire declaration, “We will judge him [Gaddafi] by his actions, not his words.” The Security Council resolution made clear that “he must stop what he is doing, brutalizing his people,” he told the BBC. “If not, all necessary measures can follow to make him stop.”
Cameron earlier told Parliament that Britain was moving warplanes and aerial refueling and surveillance aircraft to bases from which “they can start to take the necessary action.”
A French Foreign Ministry spokesman said Paris also is being “very cautious” about the purported cease-fire. Gaddafi “ is now starting to be afraid, but on the ground the threat has not changed,” Bernard Valero told Reuters television.
In a 10 to 0 vote, with five abstentions, the Security Council called for an immediate cease-fire in Libya and approved the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libyan territory and the interdiction of ships carrying supplies to Gaddafi’s government. In broad language, the council approved the use of any means short of “foreign occupation” to end strikes against “civilian populated areas under threat of attack . . . including Benghazi.”
The vote marked a dramatic turn in the world’s response to the Libyan crisis after weeks of debate and reluctance by many to intervene, and it comes as rebel forces were said to be on the brink of defeat.
Celebrations erupted across Benghazi as word of the vote reached the rebels. Clerics chanted “God is great” over mosque loudspeakers, and the streets were filled with celebratory gunfire and people waving the pre-Gaddafi Libyan flag adopted by the rebels.
France said it was prepared to launch attacks within hours, and Britain also indicated that it was prepared to act quickly. Initial strikes are likely to target air defense systems and runways; it was unclear whether plans were also in motion to strike at tank columns and other government ground forces headed east.
U.S. officials said that it would probably take several days for a full operation to be undertaken and that President Obama had not yet approved the use of U.S. military assets. Obama has preferred to let other nations publicly lead the response to the Libyan crisis, and he did not appear on camera Thursday night to speak about the U.N. vote.
In a measured response to the vote that contrasted with threats earlier in the day by Gaddafi to “show no mercy” to the rebels, Libya’s deputy foreign minister, Khaled Kaim, told reporters in Tripoli that Libya welcomed clauses in the resolution calling for protection of civilians.
But he cautioned the international community against arming the opposition, saying it would be tantamount to “inviting Libyans to kill each other.” The intention of the Libyan armed forces, he said, was “to protect civilians and guarantee food and medical supplies.”
Adoption of the resolution was seen as the last major hurdle to implementing plans drawn up by NATO in recent weeks that include unspecified participation by U.S. warships stationed off the Libyan coast or U.S. aircraft.
Shortly after the vote, Obama called Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy, the White House said in a statement. The leaders “agreed that Libya must immediately comply with terms of the resolution” and said they would “coordinate closely on next steps,” including working with “Arab and other international partners” to ensure enforcement of the resolution.
“There is no justification for [Gaddafi’s] continued leadership now,” Ambassador Susan E. Rice said after casting the U.S. vote in favor of the resolution. Russia, China, Germany, Brazil and India — all of whom expressed reservations about the move — abstained.
Earlier Thursday, Gaddafi had warned Benghazi that “we are coming tonight and there will be no mercy.” In an audio address delivered on state television, he promised to hunt down opposition “traitors” and vowed, “The whole world will watch Benghazi and see what will happen in it.”
Libya’s Defense Ministry threatened swift retaliation against any outside attack. “Any foreign military act against Libya will expose all air and maritime traffic in the Mediterranean to danger, and civilian and military facilities will become targets,” the Defense Ministry said in a statement distributed by the state news agency.
Thursday’s vote came only after the Arab League agreed Saturday to support a no-fly zone over Libya. The resolution “requests” Arab League members to cooperate with other U.N. members in implementing its terms, and U.S. officials said they expected that several Arab governments would help fund the operation or contribute military assets.
Lebanon’s U.N. ambassador, Nawaf Salam, provided no details on what role Arab countries would play in the military operation, saying that participants would make their own announcements. But he insisted that “there would be no forces on the ground in any form or in any part of Libya.”
In addition to a specific “ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya” and use of “all necessary measures” to protect civilians, the resolution authorizes interdiction and inspection “on the high seas” of all vessels and aircraft bound to or from Libya provided there are “reasonable grounds to believe that the cargo contains items” prohibited under a previously adopted arms embargo and other sanctions.
It also calls on all U.N. members to stop the flow of “armed mercenary personnel” to Libya.
Among the five governments that abstained in the vote, Brazil’s U.N. ambassador, Maria Luiza Riberio Viotti, voiced concern that military action in Libya would “exacerbate tensions on the ground and cause more harm than good to the same civilians we are committed to protect.”
She also warned that military action would undermine the “spontaneous homegrown nature’’ of popular uprisings spreading through the Arab world and threatened to “change that narrative in ways that would have serious repercussions” for Libya and the rest of the region.
Libya’s renegade U.N.-based diplomat, Ibrahim Dabbashi, praised the council’s action and urged outside powers to move “immediately” to halt Gaddafi’s military offensive. The vote, Dabbashi said, sent a clear message to the Libyan people that they “are not alone. We are glad that Benghazi will now be safe.’’
In a statement earlier Thursday, Secretary of State Clinton said that establishment of a no-fly zone would require “bombing targets like the Libyan defense systems.”
U.S. military officials said Libya has more than 30 surface-to-air missile installations, largely positioned along its Mediterranean coast, where most of the population resides. Its arsenal also includes an unknown number of long-range missiles that can reach as far as 180 miles off the coast. Libya also operates more than 15 early-warning radar sites along the coast, a Defense Department spokesman said.
At a Senate hearing Thursday, Undersecretary of State William J. Burns confronted sharply differing views about the Libyan crisis that crossed party lines. Some, led by Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), said the administration has been too cautious in its response. “Time is running out for the Libyan people,” Kerry said.
But Sen. Richard G. Lugar (R-Ind.), along with several Democrats, warned of the “risk that our involvement would escalate” and said the administration should “seek congressional debate on a declaration of war” against Libya before U.S. forces participate in any action.
deyoungk@washpost.com

lynchc@washpost.com

Sly reported from Tripoli, Libya. Raghavan reported from Zuwaytinah, Libya. Staff writer Colum Lynch contributed from the United Nations. Staff writers Greg Miller, Karen DeYoung and Craig Whitlock in Washington contributed to this report.

12 March 2011

Arab League asks for no-fly zone over Libya 12MAR11

THE Arab League needs to step up and do more, they need to provide the aircraft and bear the cost of enforcing any no fly zone. 
By DIAA HADID
The Associated Press


CAIRO -- The Arab League asked the U.N. Security Council Saturday to impose a no-fly zone over Libya to protect civilians from air attack by forces of Moammar Gadhafi's embattled government, giving crucial backing to a key demand of the rebel forces battling to oust the Libyan leader.
Foreign ministers from the 22-member Arab bloc, meeting in Cairo, also left the Libyan leader of more than 40 years increasingly isolated, declaring his government had "lost its sovereignty."
They also appeared to confer legitimacy on the rebel's interim government, the National Libyan Council, saying they would establish contacts with the umbrella group and calling on nations to provide it with "urgent help."
"The Arab League asks the United Nations to shoulder its responsibility ... to impose a no-fly zone over the movement of Libyan military planes and to create safe zones in the places vulnerable to airstrikes," said a League statement released after the emergency session.
League Secretary-General Amr Moussa stressed in remarks afterward that a no-fly zone was intended as a humanitarian measure to protect Libyan civilians and foreigners in the country and not as a military intervention.
That stance appeared meant to win over the deeply Arab nationalist government of Syria, which has smarted against foreign intervention into Arab affairs.
The Arab League cannot impose a no-fly zone itself. But the approval of the key regional Arab body gives the U.S. and other Western powers crucial regional backing they say they need before doing so. Many were weary that Western powers would be seen as intervening in the affairs of an Arab country if they began a no-fly zone without Arab approval.
Still, the Obama administration has said a no-fly zone may have limited impact, and the international community is divided over the issue.
Backing the rebel's political leadership, the League statement said it had faced "grievous violations and serious crimes by the Libyan authorities, which have lost their sovereignty."
The League's decision comes hours before the European Union's policy chief is set to arrive in Cairo to meet with the Arab bloc's leaders to discuss the situation in Libya.
Catherine Ashton said she hoped to discuss a "collaborative approach" with Arab League chief Moussa on Libya and the rest of the region.
Ashton said it was necessary to evaluate how effective economic sanctions imposed on Gadhafi's regime had been so far and that she was "keeping all options moving forward" regarding any additional measures.
German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle welcomed the EU's "very cautious" stance on possible military intervention.
"We do not want to be drawn into a war in north Africa - we should have learned from the events in and surrounding Iraq," Westerwelle said.
"It is very important that the impression doesn't arise that this is a conflict of the West against the Arab world or a Christian crusade against people of Muslim faith."

10 March 2011

Don't "No-Fly" Libya 4MAR11

FROM the Washington Peace Center
Libya - banner no intervention.jpg
What would a no-fly zone in Libya mean? A bit of history may provide some perspective.
Libyan demonstrators flying the Kingdom of Libya flag, in the main square of Benghazi on 28 February 2011.

Today in Libya, civilians are being killed by a besieged and isolated dictator. Libyan warplanes have been used to attack civilians, although the vast majority of the violence has come from ground attacks. The Libyan opposition’s provisional national council, meeting in Benghazi, is debating whether they should request military support from the international community, maybe the UN or NATO, starting with a no-fly zone. The Arab League announced that it was also considering establishing a no-fly zone, perhaps with the African Union.

It is unclear what casualties the airstrikes may have caused. The anti-regime forces have some access to anti-aircraft weapons, and Qaddafi has already lost planes and pilots alike to the opposition — but it is far from clear where the military balance lies.

Powerful U.S. voices — including neo-conservative warmongers and liberal interventionists in and out of the administration, as well as important anti-war forces in and out of Congress — are calling on the Obama administration to establish a no-fly zone in Libya to protect civilians.

A Libyan activist writes in The Guardian, “we welcome a no-fly zone, but the blood of Libya's dead will be wasted if the west curses our uprising with failed intervention.” He says that his hopes for a happy ending are “marred by a fear shared by all Libyans; that of a possible western military intervention to end the crisis.” He seems to believe that a U.S. or NATO no-fly zone would mean something other than a Western military intervention.

Ironically it was Secretary of Defense Robert Gates who warned that establishing a no-fly zone “begins with an attack on Libya.” It would be an act of war. And the Middle East doesn’t need another U.S. war.

What would a no-fly zone in Libya mean? A bit of history may provide some perspective.
Bombing Tripoli

The year was 1986. People had been killed, this time in a terrorist attack in Europe. The Libyan government, led by Muammar Qaddafi, was deemed responsible. The U.S. announced air strikes directed at “key military sites” in Tripoli and Benghazi. Exactly the kind of targeted air strikes that would precede a no-fly zone. But according to the BBC, the missiles hit a densely populated Tripoli suburb, Bin Ashur. At least 100 people were killed, including Qaddafi’s three-year-old daughter. Qaddafi himself was fine.

Libyans remember.

Fast-forward half a decade. The 1991 Gulf War in Iraq was over. A besieged and defeated Arab dictator was posturing, threatening force, and the victorious U.S. decided to intervene again, officially for humanitarian reasons. The U.S. and Britain established unilateral “no-fly zones” in northern and southern Iraq. (U.S. and British officials consistently lied, claiming they were enforcing “United Nations no-fly zones,” but in fact no UN resolution ever even mentioned one.) During the twelve years of the no-fly zone, hundreds were killed by U.S. and British bombs.

Iraqis remember. So do Libyans.

Assume the “attack on Libya” preceding a no-fly zone succeeds in its very specific purpose: to eliminate the anti-aircraft weapons that could threaten U.S. planes enforcing the zone. But does that mean it also eliminates all anti-aircraft weapons in the hands of the opposition, the defectors from Qaddafi’s air force? What would the consequences be of that?

And then there are the “what if” factors.  What if they made a mistake? The 1986 U.S. airstrikes in Libya were supposed to be aimed at military targets — yet more than 100 people, many of them civilians, were killed; why do we assume it will be any different this time? What if a U.S. warplane was shot down and pilots or bombers were captured by Qaddafi’s military? Wouldn’t U.S. Special Forces immediately be deployed to rescue them? Then what?

And that’s just the military part. That’s just the beginning.
Consequences

No-fly zones, like any other act of war, have consequences. In Libya, though it is impossible to precisely gauge public opinion, a significant majority of people appears opposed to the regime and prepared to mobilize and fight to bring it down. That is not surprising. While the Libyan revolt is playing out in vastly different ways, and with far greater bloodshed, it is part and parcel of the democratic revolutionary process rising across the Arab world and beyond. And just as in Egypt, Tunisia, Yemen, Bahrain, and elsewhere, there is no evidence that the Libyan population supports foreign military involvement.

To the contrary, although at least part of the anti-Qaddafi leadership is indeed calling for some kind of military intervention, there appears to be widespread public opposition to such a call. Certainly there is fear that such foreign involvement will give credibility to Qaddafi’s currently false claims that foreigners are responsible for the uprising. But beyond that, there is a powerful appeal in the recognition that the democracy movements sweeping the Middle East and North Africa are indigenous, authentic, independent mobilizations against decades-long U.S.- and Western-backed dictatorship and oppression.

There have been broadly popular calls for international assistance to the anti-Qaddafi forces, including support for a UN-imposed assets freeze and referral to the International Criminal Court for top regime officials. And despite the breathtaking hypocrisy of the U.S., which embraces the ICC as a tool against Washington’s current opponents but rejects it for war criminals among its Israeli and other allies and refuses its jurisdiction for itself, the use of the Court for this purpose is very appropriate.

But there is no popular call for military intervention. Human rights lawyer and opposition spokesman Abdel-Hafidh Ghoga was crystal clear: “We are against any foreign intervention... This revolution will be completed by our people.” And Libyan General Ahmad Gatroni, who defected to lead the opposition forces, urged the U.S. to “take care of its own people, we can look after ourselves.”

Indeed, if the U.S. is so worried about the bombing raids against civilians, perhaps the Obama administration should take another look at Afghanistan, where nine Afghan children, ages seven to fourteen, were killed by U.S. attack helicopters in Kunar province on March 1st. If the Congress is so eager to follow the wishes of Libya’s opposition, perhaps General Gatroni’s call for the U.S. to “take care of its own people” could mean challenging another stark reality: the people of Wisconsin, facing a $1.8 billion budget deficit, will pay $1.7 billion in taxes this year just for their share of an already-existing war, the one in Afghanistan.
Global Opposition

Internationally, there is widespread public and governmental opposition in influential countries, such as India, to establishing a no-fly zone. In the United Nations, many governments are reluctant to order an act of war that would significantly escalate the military conflict underway in Libya. The Security Council resolution that passed unanimously on February 27 condemned the violence and imposed a set of targeted sanctions on the Qaddafi regime, but did not reference Article 42 of the UN Charter, the prerequisite for endorsing the use of force.

Instead, the Council relied on Article 41, which authorizes only “measures not involving the use of armed force.” Passage, let alone unanimity, would have been impossible otherwise. Russia’s ambassador specifically opposed what he called “counterproductive interventions,” and other key Council members, including veto-wielding China as well as rising powers India, South Africa, and Brazil, have all expressed various levels of caution and outright opposition to further militarizing the situation in Libya.

So far, the Obama administration and the Pentagon appear to be vacillating on support for a no-fly zone. An anonymous administration official told the New York Times“there’s a great temptation to stand up and say, ‘We’ll help you rid the country of a dictator’… But the president has been clear that what’s sweeping across the Middle East is organic to the region, and as soon as we become a military player, we’re at risk of falling into the old trap that Americans are stage-managing events for their own benefit.”

In fact that “old trap,” seizing control of international events for Washington’s own benefit, remains central to U.S. foreign policy. It’s becoming harder these days, as U.S. influence wanes. But key U.S. political forces are upping the pressure on Obama to send the troops — at least the Air Force. Those rooting for war include right-wing Republican warmongers eager to attack Obama as war-averse (despite all evidence to the contrary), as well, unfortunately, as some of the strongest anti-war voices in Congress (including Jim McDermott, Mike Honda, Keith Ellison, and others), who presumably believe that the humanitarian necessity of a no-fly zone still outweighs the dangers.

It doesn’t. Humanitarian crises simply do not shape U.S. policy. If they did, we might have heard a bit more last week when the Baghdad government   — armed, financed, trained, and supported by the United States — killed 29 Iraqi civilians demonstrating against corruption. We might have seen humanitarian involvement in the Democratic Republic of Congo, where millions of civilians have been killed in Africa’s longest and perhaps most brutal war. And we might have seen, if not direct U.S. intervention, at least an end to the U.S. enabling of the Israeli assault on Gaza that killed more than 900 civilians, 313 of them children.

Rather, “humanitarian” concerns become a tool of powerful circles to build popular support for what would otherwise bring massive public outrage — “really, while the costs of existing wars have already brought the U.S. economy to its knees, you want to launch another U.S. war in the Middle East??”
Whose Humanitarianism?

It’s not that there are no real humanitarian concerns; Libyan civilians are paying a huge price in challenging their dictator. But powerful U.S. interests are at stake, and few of them have anything to do with protecting Libyan civilians. Certainly oil is key; not so much about access to Libyan oil (the international oil market is pretty fungible), but about which oil companies will gain privileged positions? Will it be BP and Chevron who win the lucrative contracts to develop Libya’s enormous oil fields, or will Chinese and Russian oil companies take their place? What pipelines will a new government in Libya choose, and which countries and corporations will benefit?

And it’s not only about oil. The Libyan uprising is one of many potentially revolutionary transformations across the Arab world and in parts of Africa, where long-standing U.S.-backed dictatorships are collapsing — what kind of credibility can the U.S. expect in post-Qaddafi Libya? Washington may be betting that it can win credibility with the opposition by jumping out in front with an aggressive anti-Qaddafi “military assistance” campaign, perhaps starting with a no-fly zone. But in fact Washington risks antagonizing those opposition supporters, apparently the vast majority, determined to protect the independence of their democratic revolution.

The future of Libya and much of the success of the democratic revolutions now underway across the region, stand in the balance. If the Obama administration, the Pentagon, war profiteers and the rest of the U.S. policymaking establishment continue to define U.S. “national interests” as continuing U.S. domination of oil-rich and strategically-located countries and regions, Washington faces a likely future of isolation, antagonism, rising terrorism and hatred.

The democratic revolutionary processes sweeping North Africa and the Middle East have already transformed that long-stalemated region. The peoples of the region are looking for less, not greater militarization of their countries. It is time for U.S. policy to recognize that reality. Saying no to a no-fly zone in Libya will be the best thing the Obama administration can do to begin the process of crafting a new, demilitarized 21st century policy for the U.S. in the newly democratizing Middle East.

From: IPS (Institue for Policy Studies)
March 4, 2011
By  Phyllis Bennis

On Libya, Obama willing to let allies take the lead 10MAR11

There are two actions the Arab League can take to prove they are serious about their support for the opposition in Libya. First would be to immediately stop all all and gas exports to any nation that fails to freeze all assets of the Libyan government and all of Gaddafi's family, government officials and business community. Oil and gas exports should also be halted to any country preventing the establishment of a Libyan no fly zone, be it through a threatened veto at the U.N. or by "diplomatic" and economic pressure. The second action the Arab League should do is declare a Libyan no fly zone and use their Air Forces to enforce it. The best countries to provide the aircraft for enforcement would be from Egypt, Morocco, and Saudi Arabia. The Saudis and wealthy Gulf states (the U.A.E., Kuwait, Qatar) should foot the bill. Israel's security concerns during such an operation would have to be addressed. Moving the U.S. aircraft carrier with it's fleet of support boats now in the Red Sea to the Mediterranean to patrol off the Israeli coast, with clear instructions to intercept and destroy any rogue aircraft should address their fears.
Failure by the Arab League to take action and accept responsibility for the slaughter in Libya will leave them having to explain to their people how they were able to stand by and let fellow Muslims be cut down by Gaddafi's brutal regime. From the Washington Post..... By Scott Wilson
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, March 10, 2011; 12:21 AM


President Obama is content to let other nations publicly lead the search for solutions to the Libyan conflict, his advisers say, a stance that reflects the more humble tone he has sought to bring to U.S. foreign policy but one that also opens him to criticism that he is a weak leader.
The tactic is anathema to many conservatives and worries some liberal interventionists, who believe that only overt American authority can assemble an effective opposition to brutal authoritarian governments such as that of Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.
Although Obama sees advantages in keeping Washington in the background, especially in a region where the United States is held in such low regard, he has exposed himself to Republican charges that he is absent at a time of crisis. Conservatives say his one-of-the-team approach could also signal a decline in American fortitude after nearly a decade of war.
Since the uprising began, Obama has devoted just one set of public remarks solely to the situation in Libya, where fighting has reached a harsh stalemate. European nations have taken the lead in drafting a no-fly zone resolution, and Obama has yet to say whether he favors one. He followed France in calling for Gaddafi's ouster.
At a Wednesday meeting of Obama's senior national security officials, little support emerged for the immediate imposition of a no-fly zone, according to an administration official who spoke on condition of anonymity to describe internal deliberations.
Jamming Libyan government communications and deploying U.S. naval assets to help deliver humanitarian aid were among the most favored near-term options, the official said, adding that "at any time facts on the ground could change, but the intelligence assessment now dispels the idea that a no-fly zone is the key here."
Obama's caution has been dictated in part by the challenge in dealing with one of the world's most hermetic countries and the fluid situation on the ground. The administration knows little about Libya's well-armed rebels, cannot predict the political system that might replace Gaddafi's bizarre rule, and faces an array of military options to stop the fighting.
Obama's advisers say his low public profile masks the administration's active private diplomacy, which has helped produce strong financial sanctions against Gaddafi's inner circle, and the central U.S. role in military planning underway at NATO, whose defense ministers meet Thursday to consider next steps.
"This is the Obama conception of the U.S. role in the world - to work through multilateral organizations and bilateral relationships to make sure that the steps we are taking are amplified," said Ben Rhodes, the deputy national security adviser for strategic communications. "Maybe this is a different conception of U.S. leadership. But we believe leadership should galvanize an international response, not rely on a unilateral U.S. response."
For decades, U.S. presidents have been pressed to choose between intervening in foreign crises or ignoring them. Both paths have led to political risks for recent presidents, whose records are influencing Obama's response to the violence in Libya.
Anthony H. Cordesman, who holds the Arleigh A. Burke Chair in Strategy at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that "there's always going to be a demand for the United States to take immediate action, but it is not always the right thing to do."
"Unfortunately, as president, ultimately your reasons don't matter," he said. "It's whether you succeed or fail that does."
Bill Clinton was criticized for standing by during the 1994 genocide in Rwanda and waiting for years to use force in the Balkans. He finally did so in Kosovo without a U.N. Security Council resolution, a case that is being examined by European countries and the Obama administration as they decide how to proceed in Libya.
George W. Bush took that unilateral approach even further following the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. The Bush administration failed to secure a Security Council resolution before the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and generally found international institutions more confining than useful in addressing America's post-Sept. 11 problems.
Obama, by contrast, is closely consulting his European counterparts and at times following their lead. French President Nicolas Sarkozy was the first leader of a major country to call for Gaddafi's ouster. Obama did so the next day in a phone call with German Chancellor Angela Merkel and spoke his position publicly five days later, clearly aligning the United States with Libya's opposition.
"Having called on Gaddafi to leave, I think it would be hard for the administration to back away from the crisis if that goal remains unmet," said Tom Malinowski, the Washington director of Human Rights Watch, who said doing so would risk sending a message to other autocrats that they can use violence to maintain power.
How Obama intends to use American power to achieve that goal has yet to be determined.
Britain and France are drafting the no-fly zone resolution for possible consideration by the Security Council. But it remains unclear where Obama stands on the issue, which has only mixed support on Capitol Hill.
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), the Senate Foreign Relations Committee chairman whose public statements often reflect administration policy,called Sunday for a no-fly zone, but White House Chief of Staff William Daley criticized advocates of the idea for referring to a no-fly zone as if it were a "video game." Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates has also stressed the difficulties in carrying out such an operation.
"That seems to me to indicate an administration that has not yet made up its mind on what to do in Libya," said Elliott Abrams, who was a National Security Council director under Bush. He called Daley's comments "derisive."
Obama inherited a pair of wars in Muslim countries, and his advisers argue that direct U.S. involvement in a third would do more harm than good to Libya's popular uprising.
Abrams, who participated in the White House working group on Egypt assembled last year, said he "understands the point."
"But I think they overdo it," he said. "I think they are being too timid here. And they are running the risk that there will be a bloodbath tomorrow and, by then, it will be too late for them to help the opposition."
Senior administration officials say that regardless of whether the U.S. role is characterized as leading or following, it has been part of a swift international response to the Libyan crisis.
The Security Council has imposed sanctions on Gaddafi's regime and referred Libya's case to the International Criminal Court. The Arab League and African Union, traditionally hesitant to rebuke a member, have done so in the case of Libya.
"Remaining in the background and letting the Europeans take the lead can help build consensus with such countries as Russia and China," Cordesman said, referring to two veto-wielding Security Council members often suspicious of U.S. motives."If we'd presented a sudden initiative, you might have seen it be far more difficult for others to act in support of it."
Given the United States' troubled history with Libya's erratic leader, a senior administration official said, the White House decided early that "what would be more persuasive to Gaddafi is not just the United States saying something, but having the United States, the European Union, the Arab League, the African Union, the United Nations all saying the same things that essentially left him nowhere to turn for legitimacy or support."
"That's been done, essentially," the official said, adding, "It's not as if we're not on the side of change."