WOODWORKING

Libya and the War for oil

Some of the earliest key targets in the UN-backed assault on Libya are likely to be Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s command and control capabilities, as well as his air defences, which could still pose a threat to foreign aircraft.

British Prime Minister David Cameron has said that British forces are already in action in the Libya operation, which is codenamed Operation Ellamy in the UK (the Americans are calling it Odyssey Dawn).

At their home bases in the UK, Tornado GR4 ground attack aircraft and Typhoons for the air-to-air attack role are well prepared for what is to come.

British warships are already off the coast in Libya to ensure the arms embargo is respected.

Submarines have also been deployed for this mission, while experts say they would expect special forces to be in Libya already, having prepared the ground and assessed targets – their role, to send back vital information to those preparing and conducting the strikes from the skies or the seas.

The French have already bombed Libyan tanks and jeeps.

Demoralising Gaddafi’s forces

The main British contribution to this coalition are fighter jets, Sentinel R1 and Nimrod R1 reconnaissance and surveillance aircraft (AWACs) to give vital information about what’s happening on the ground, plus VC10 tanker planes for air-to-air-refuelling.

As part of the broad coalition, the US is also helping to remove the threat from Libya’s air defences with sea-launched missiles.

However, commanders will face tough decisions on what to target in the coming hours and days, so accurate intelligence from the ground is essential.

 

While the hi-tech jets provided by France, the UK, Denmark, Norway, Canada and others should be able to dominate the skies easily, the mission to protect Libya’s civilians runs a host of risks – from the dangers faced by pilots involved in the bombing raids, to the danger of civilian casualties if something goes wrong, especially with Col Gaddafi’s forces so close to Benghazi.

For the allies in the air, it is a calculated gamble. The UN resolution is wide-ranging, giving the coalition leeway not just to disable Col Gaddafi’s air defences but also target Libyan ground forces.

The hope is that this international show of strength from the air will demoralise his forces rapidly, and encourage them to flee or defect.

At the very least, his ground forces will need to be pushed back from Benghazi and other rebel areas, if civilians are to be protected from attack. The Libyan forces loyal to Col Gaddafi already have very stretched supply lines across the open desert, which will be vulnerable to attack.

But while the coalition in the air has a huge array of resources, those taking part are all too aware that their enormous firepower must be used carefully to ensure they do not endanger the very people the allies are there to protect.

This is what the Mirror has to say:

Libya bombing raids a success, say RAF

 

The RAF said they were “entirely comfortable” with the success of last night’s bombing raids over Libya.

Tornado GR4 fast jets and a Royal Navy Trafalgar-class submarine were involved in striking “high value targets” in the capital Tripoli and other parts of Libya as the international community swung into action against Muammar Gaddafi.

Detailing British involvement in the coalition’s efforts against Gaddafi’s forces, Air Vice-Marshal Phil Osborn told a briefing in London: “We are entirely comfortable with the way last night’s mission went in terms of success.”

He would not confirm if the Libyan airforce had been destroyed but said: “It’s fair to say that there is a threat, we always have to be aware that there may remain a threat.”

Tornados flew from RAF Marham as part of an eight-hour, 3,000 mile round mission, the longest since the Falklands conflict.

The jets were supported by VC10 and Tristar air to air refuelling aircraft.

The jets were refuelled four times during the mission, Air Vice-Marshal Osborn added.

In a co-ordinated strike on Libyan air defences, US and UK vessels in the Mediterranean fired 112 Tomahawk missiles at more than 20 targets around the coastal cities of Tripoli and Misrata last night.

The barrage was followed by further assaults by the Tornados, which fired Storm Shadow missiles at targets on the ground.

Earlier yesterday, around 20 French Mirage and Rafale jets fired on tanks and armoured vehicles being used by Muammar Gaddafi’s forces near the rebel stronghold of Benghazi.

The allied strikes followed an emergency summit in Paris to agree military action to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which authorises “all necessary measures” short of foreign occupation to protect civilians in Libya.

Prime Minister David Cameron said that Britain’s military involvement as part of a broad international coalition was “necessary, legal and right”, adding: “I believe we should all be confident that what we are doing is in a just cause and in our nation’s interest.”

The first day’s salvoes were designed to clear the way for the establishment of a no-fly zone to prevent Gaddafi from using his superior air power to crush the month-old uprising demanding an end to his 42-year rule.

Gaddafi responded by vowing to conduct a long war “with unlimited patience and deep faith”. He said arms depots were being thrown open to arm the Libyan people to defend themselves against what state TV termed “the crusader enemy”.

 

Libyan television reported that 48 people had died and 150 were wounded in the air strikes, which it claimed had hit civilian areas in Tripoli and fuel storage tanks that supplied Misrata.

But Chancellor George Osborne said claims of civilian deaths should be treated “with some caution”.

“I know our military planners are taking absolutely every precaution to try to avoid civilian casualties and the targets last night were very specifically military targets, connected with the Libyan air defence system,” Mr Osborne told BBC1′s Andrew Marr Show.

Mr Osborne played down the prospect of the airstrikes being followed by a ground invasion.

“We are not considering ground forces at the moment. We are undertaking operations from our Navy, through the submarine-launched cruise missiles and the RAF and the Tornado planes that flew missions last night,” he said.

“We are enforcing a UN resolution – a resolution that was supported by many Arab countries and African nations as well – and the resolution is very clear about what we are there to do.

“We are there to enforce a ceasefire and protect the civilian population. We are not there to put an occupying force into the country.”

Though the UN resolution does not explicitly authorise regime change, Foreign Secretary William Hague told Sky News: “We can’t see a future for Libya which has Colonel Gaddafi staying there, but then I doubt the vast majority of the population of Libya can see that either. We want him to go.”

Labour leader Ed Miliband supported the Government’s action and paid tribute to British troops.

Mr Miliband said: “They are exceptionally brave and courageous.

“It is always a grave decision to send our armed forces into possible combat.

“But the international community could not have stood by as innocent people were slaughtered.”

He added: “The United Nations was right to act to uphold international values and law and to help the people of Libya in their hour of need.

“Britain and its Armed Forces were right to join in military action to support the will of the international community.

“We offer our forces all the support they need during the days and hours ahead.”

 

Obama Finally Has His Own War as seen by Der Spiegel

By Marc Pitzke in New York

Barack Obama has taken a firm stance against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi in one of the toughest speeches of his presidency. For Obama, threatening air strikes against Libya is a decisive turning point. Now the formerly peace-minded US president finally has a war of his own making.

US President Barack Obama has struck a new tone. It’s one that would have been unthinkable back when he was still a presidential candidate — the candidate of peace, who rejected his predecessor’s wars and wanted to have as little to do with them as possible. But now he is president and commander-in-chief. And now he has the first war of his own making.

 

On Friday afternoon, Obama entered the East Room of the White House, to make one of the shortest but toughest speeches of his presidency. It was not an open declaration of war — the word was not mentioned once. But the speech was the culmination of a week in which the pacifist turned into a warrior. At the end of that week, Obama himself committed American troops to a new, distant front for the first time. He did so reluctantly, but it was clear to him that the decision was inevitable.

It was one of the most decisive moments in Obama’s still young presidency.

From Peace to War

Following the UN resolution on Thursday night that paved the way for military strikes against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi, Obama had been silent for 20 hours. While the French and British were making preparations for military action, and the Germans pondered the wisdom of their abstention, the White House preferred to wait.

That was partly because no one in Washington really knows what to make of Gadhafi’s recent maneuvering. But mainly it is because Obama finds himself trapped in a dilemma: He must explain to his people why he gone from being a staunch opponent of US military action to its advocate. It would be the third current American military operation in a Muslim country, after Afghanistan and Iraq.

Some American commentators have already begun referring to the Korean War. That war, which traumatized generations of Americans, began in a similar fashion in 1950, with a UN resolution and an offer of help from the West.

From peace to war in seven days: It is enough to give people “whiplash,” complained Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson on the TV channel MSNBC.

‘We Will Not Respond to Words’

The discrepancy could also be seen during Obama’s appearance in the East Room. He was addressing two different audiences. On the one hand, he threatened Gadhafi in tougher terms than ever before. On the other, Obama, with an eye to the domestic TV audience, played down the consequences from an American perspective. Supporting the UN was fine, he said, but ruled out unilateral military action or the use of US ground forces.

In terms of the message to Gadhafi, Obama could hardly have expressed himself any more clearly. “These terms are not negotiable,” he said, referring to the conditions laid down by UN Resolution 1973, namely a ceasefire, an end to attacks on civilians and halting the advance on Benghazi. Obama has never seemed so determined before.

At the same time, he had his foot firmly on the brake when it came to military action. He announced that US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton would first meet with America’s European allies and Arab partners on Saturday in Paris to discuss how the resolution should be enforced — meaning that the bombing would not start immediately.

Washington also appeared unimpressed by Gadhafi’s announcement of a ceasefire on Friday. “We are going to be not responsive or impressed by words,” Clinton said. “We would have to see actions on the ground.”

British Prime Minister David Cameron, who discussed the situation with Obama in a telephone conversation, made similar comments. “We will judge (Gadhafi) by his actions, not his words,” he told the BBC.

Events on Saturday proved the leaders’ skepticism to be well founded. Gadhafi’s ground troops attacked the rebel stronghold of Benghazi, and a fighter jet was shot down over the city.

Selling War to the American People

During his speech, Obama summarized how the situation had escalated, partially for the benefit of those in his domestic audience who had previously paid little attention to the situation in Libya. He described how Gadhafi had responded to pro-democracy protests with an “iron fist”: “Instead of respecting the rights of his own people, Gadhafi chose the path of brutal suppression.” Obama also described the long series of international responses to Gadhafi — the sanctions, the arms embargo and the repeated warnings.

Then came the most important part of the speech: why the US should get involved. “Now, here is why this matters to us,” said Obama, sounding a bit like a math teacher explaining a problem to his students. “The calls of the Libyan people for help would go unanswered. The democratic values that we stand for would be overrun. Moreover, the words of the international community would be rendered hollow.” In other words, America is prepared to go to war over such concerns.

Obama may well have used similar words when, earlier in the White House, he had briefed the most important representatives and senators in detail about the possible UN deployment for the first time. The audience included both supporters of a US involvement, such as John Kerry, Joe Lieberman and John McCain, as well as opponents such as Dick Lugar.

Congress does not need to approve the US action, because it is not an official declaration of war. But it can still hold a symbolic vote. By then at the latest, the divisions in Washington will probably start showing.

The first cracks were already appearing on Friday. “None of this makes any sense,” the columnist Andrew Sullivan wrote in his blog for The Atlantic. Gaddafi is not a threat to the US, he argued, adding “not even the most righteous neocons” have pushed for military action on such slim grounds. Sullivan also condemned “the imperial presidency that Obama has now taken to a greater height than even Bush.”

‘Our Cause Is Just’

It is now clear that Obama’s attitude changed on Tuesday evening at a crisis meeting at the White House which apparently became extremely heated. Both sides presented their arguments for and against an intervention in the conflict. Vice President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who was taking part via telephone, advocated military action. They were opposed by US Defense Secretary Robert Gates, National Security Adviser Tom Donilon and his deputy, Denis McDonough.

In contrast to his stance on the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia, Obama ended up joining the side of the interventionists, arguing that Libya was central to the whole wave of change in the Middle East. “This is the greatest opportunity to realign our interests and our values,” a senior administration official said at the meeting, according to the magazine Foreign Policy. The official apparently said that the sentence came from Obama himself. The president included the same sentiment in his speech on Friday.

In his address, Obama stipulated one condition, however: no invasion. “Our goal is focused, our cause is just, and our coalition is strong,” he said — sounding exactly like George W. Bush. By an irony of history, his speech came just before the eighth anniversary of the bombing of Iraq on the night of March 19-20, 2003, which began the Iraq war.

“In the case of Libya, they just threw out their playbook,” Steve Clemons from the New America Foundation told Foreign Policy. “The fact that Obama pivoted on a dime shows that the White House is flying without a strategy.”

It also shows that the old divide between the State Department and the Pentagon has reappeared. Hillary Clinton has won this round, at the expense of Gates, who did not want to impose an additional front on his already overburdened forces — especially as all the strategic scenarios in Libya are unappealing.

Nevertheless, the troops are ready. The US has brought six warships and a submarine into position in the Mediterranean. “We have been deploying in the region for a few weeks,” says one government source. “We are ready to fight.” The “full range” is enabled, he says: combat jets and bombers, reconnaissance aircraft and marines.

‘He’s Going on Vacation’

But there was a sense of disbelief in some quarters in Washington about the fact that Obama set off on a long-planned five-day trip to Brazil, Chile and El Salvador on Friday evening, just hours after his Libya speech and despite the ongoing crisis. Gates was also planning to leave for a three-day trip to Russia on Saturday.

 

Obama is “going on vacation,” mocked host Steve Doocy on the conservative Fox News network. “He’s going to Rio. You’ve got to be kidding. He’s taking his family.”

The deputy national security adviser, Ben Rhodes, had earlier defended the trip. “It’s imperative that the United States not disengage from these regions,” he told reporters on Wednesday.

But there’s no getting away from the fact that Rio is a long way from Tripoli. Obama is indeed a reluctant commander-in-chief.

Sources:

Spiegel, BBC, Google, Mirror, and others

 

About the Author

Minmin: Bombe nucléaire n°1

Unique Living Dining Room Décor – 41 Black Lacquer Bombay Chest w/ 24ct. Gold Leaf $1,795.00 …

Blown Away $14.98 Before he made the man-eating lion thriller The Ghost and the Darkness and the special- effects-laden Lost in Space, director Stephen Hopkins helmed this ludicrous and critically panned thriller pitting a cop on the Boston Police bomb squad (Jeff Bridges) against a mad Irish bomber (Tommy Lee Jones) who’s still holding a grudge from their early years in the Irish Republican Army. A showcase for th…

The French Chef: Mousses, Bombes And Parfaits $1.99 …

TROIS BOMBES AU SERVICE DE LA MECAN …

French Professional Pastry Series : Decorations, Borders and Letters, Marzipan, Modern Desserts $44.37 Volume 4 outlines techniques of decoration, illustrates techniques and patterns for borders and letters, and covers modeling with almond paste….

Rue de la Bombe (Carnets d’Orient, Tome 7) $38.36 …

Bombes sur Belgrade $16.42 Traces d’usages,légère pliure jaquette,jauni, qq peu défraîchi mais sinon bel ouvrage.Expédition rapide de votre commande avec protection soignée de vos articles.Professionnel de la vente à distance.Professional on e-business.Fast delivery of your order.Item very well packed(réf 24Btel)…

Paris Sous Les Bombes $19.98 …

Le Soleil est une Bombe Atomique $13.13 CAPHARNAUM is a guitar oriented instrumental prog rock with a fresh new sound and lots of energy on stage….

Les Bombes $17.35 …