Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign

[Trajan]

yea, well someone posted a chart I spoke to a coupla of weeks ago that had the aircraft strength available for Libya by nation. I said then and many here speculated, without us, they won't be able to carry the load. And, they can't.

The USS Enterprise an aircraft carrier we had in the Persian gulf that was re-routed to the Med for Libya then, sent back to the gulf because Obama wanted nato to get it done to protect us from blow-back, has more 2/3's of the strike aircraft nato presently has in theater by itself.

they have I am sure asked us to step back in, back channel and I bet they were told no. This whole thing is a rank mess and in the end we will NOT escape blame, either way we go.



Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign
April 5th 2011


US withdrawal of attack planes puts pressure on European countries, especially France, to offer more strike capability

Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, France and Britain.

David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But pressure is growing for other European countries, especially France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.

"We will need more strike capability," a Nato official said.

Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told Nato ambassadors.

But attempts to "degrade" the Libyan leader's firepower further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato military planner.

"They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport," while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.

"We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because we have seen they have chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being targeted, even using human shields."

more at-

Nato lacking strike aircraft for Libya campaign | World news | guardian.co.uk

 

[ekrem]

If Ghaddafi bombs the shit out of rebels (terrorists who take-up arms against state-authority), he is right to do so. That's no civilians.

Of which chart are you speaking, can you link it?

 

[waltky]

Slackers...

Libyan rebel leader says NATO isn't doing enough
5 Apr.`11 — A rebel military leader lashed out at NATO Tuesday, saying it was falling short in its mission to protect Libyan civilians. The alliance said ruler Moammar Gadhafi's forces position heavy weapons in populated areas, preventing some airstrikes.

Abdel-Fattah Younis, chief of staff for the rebel military and Gadhafi's former interior minister, said he was asking the opposition's leadership council to take their grievances to the U.N. Security Council, which authorized force in Libya to stop government troops from wiping out the anti-Gadhafi uprising that began Feb. 15. NATO forces "don't do anything" even though the United Nations gave them the right to act, Younis said. He said bureaucracy means that NATO strikes sometimes come eight hours after rebels' have communicated targets. "The people will die and this crime will be on the face of the international community forever. What is NATO doing?" Younis said.

NATO last week took control over the international airstrikes that began March 19 as a U.S.-led mission. The airstrikes thwarted Gadhafi's efforts to crush the rebellion in the North African nation he has ruled for more than four decades, but the rebels remain outnumbered and outgunned and have had difficulty pushing into government-held territory even with air support. The government pushed back rebel forces in a strategic oil town to the east Tuesday, while rebels claimed they fended off an attack by Gadhafi's forces in one of a string of opposition-controlled towns southwest of Tripoli, the capital. The rebels have maintained control of much of the eastern half of Libya since early in the uprising, while Gadhafi has clung to much of the west.

Gadhafi has been putting out feelers for a cease-fire, but refuses to step down as the opposition is demanding. On Tuesday his government announced a new foreign minister: Abdelati al-Obeidi, who has been in Europe seeking a diplomatic solution. He replaces Moussa Koussa, who defected last week. Al-Obeidi's deputy Khaled Kaim said the opposition council doesn't represent most Libyans and that al-Qaeda is exploiting the crisis. He accused nations supporting the airstrikes of supporting terrorism "by arming the militias, by providing them with materials, and the coalition's decision to starve 85% of the Libyan population, while there was another course for solving this crisis, which was the political course."

Kaim said "history will not forgive" Libyans who sought foreign help to change the regime. "People will reject them whether they are with or against Moammar Gadhafi," he said. Some nations, including the U.S., have considered arming the rebels but have not done so. Brig. Gen. Mark Van Uhm of NATO said Tuesday that airstrikes have so far destroyed 30% of Gadhafi's military capacity.

MORE

 

[hipeter924]

How do we save NATO? We quit

The alliance has lost its sense of purpose. The way to get it back is for the U.S. to withdraw and let Europe be responsible for its own defense.


April 02, 2009|Andrew J. Bacevich | Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. The paperback edition of his book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism," comes out in April.

When he visits Strasbourg, France, this week to participate in festivities marking NATO's 60th anniversary, President Obama should deliver a valedictory address, announcing his intention to withdraw the United States from the alliance. The U.S. has done its job. It's time for Europe to assume full responsibility for its own security, freeing the U.S. to attend to more urgent priorities.
The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 remains a singular example of enlightened statecraft. With Europe's democracies still suffering from the ravages of World War II, and fearing the threat posed by Stalinist Russia, the U.S. abandoned its aversion to "entangling alliances" and committed itself to Europe's defense. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower came out of retirement to serve as NATO's first military chief. As U.S. forces arrived to take up their stations, the alliance soon found its footing. In its heyday, NATO possessed formidable capabilities and real (if never fully tested) cohesion. Its safety ensured, Western Europe prospered and remained at peace.

Over time, the Soviet threat diminished and eventually disappeared. Since then, however, an alliance once regarded as the most successful in all of history has lost its way.
When the end of the Cold War left Russia temporarily weakened, the United States and its allies wasted no time in exploiting that weakness. NATO pressed eastward, incorporating into its ranks nations that had previously formed part of the Soviet empire and of the Soviet Union itself. American policymakers urged the alliance to expand its reach, abandoning its defensive posture to become an instrument of intervention. According to the conventional wisdom of the 1990s, NATO needed to go "out of area" or it would surely go "out of business."
This program of enlarging both NATO's territorial expanse and its ambitions has now reached an impasse. Through its military punishment of Georgia last year, Russia has signaled it will not tolerate further encroachments into what the Kremlin sees as its legitimate sphere of influence. Meanwhile, through its ineffective performance in Afghanistan -- NATO's most ambitious "out of area" contingency -- the alliance has revealed the extent to which its capabilities and its cohesion have eroded.
Present-day NATO is a shadow of what it once was. Calling it a successful alliance today is the equivalent of calling General Motors a successful car company -- it privileges nostalgia over self-awareness.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/apr/02/opinion/oe-bacevich2

Why are we in Nato in the first place, we can't afford these interventions anymore, let Europe deal with its own mess, if France and the UK want a war with Libya let them, and when they screw up they will be to blame.

 

[California Girl]

How do we save NATO? We quit

The alliance has lost its sense of purpose. The way to get it back is for the U.S. to withdraw and let Europe be responsible for its own defense.


April 02, 2009|Andrew J. Bacevich | Andrew J. Bacevich is a professor of history and international relations at Boston University. The paperback edition of his book, "The Limits of Power: The End of American Exceptionalism," comes out in April.

When he visits Strasbourg, France, this week to participate in festivities marking NATO's 60th anniversary, President Obama should deliver a valedictory address, announcing his intention to withdraw the United States from the alliance. The U.S. has done its job. It's time for Europe to assume full responsibility for its own security, freeing the U.S. to attend to more urgent priorities.
The creation of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization in 1949 remains a singular example of enlightened statecraft. With Europe's democracies still suffering from the ravages of World War II, and fearing the threat posed by Stalinist Russia, the U.S. abandoned its aversion to "entangling alliances" and committed itself to Europe's defense. Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower came out of retirement to serve as NATO's first military chief. As U.S. forces arrived to take up their stations, the alliance soon found its footing. In its heyday, NATO possessed formidable capabilities and real (if never fully tested) cohesion. Its safety ensured, Western Europe prospered and remained at peace.

Over time, the Soviet threat diminished and eventually disappeared. Since then, however, an alliance once regarded as the most successful in all of history has lost its way.
When the end of the Cold War left Russia temporarily weakened, the United States and its allies wasted no time in exploiting that weakness. NATO pressed eastward, incorporating into its ranks nations that had previously formed part of the Soviet empire and of the Soviet Union itself. American policymakers urged the alliance to expand its reach, abandoning its defensive posture to become an instrument of intervention. According to the conventional wisdom of the 1990s, NATO needed to go "out of area" or it would surely go "out of business."
This program of enlarging both NATO's territorial expanse and its ambitions has now reached an impasse. Through its military punishment of Georgia last year, Russia has signaled it will not tolerate further encroachments into what the Kremlin sees as its legitimate sphere of influence. Meanwhile, through its ineffective performance in Afghanistan -- NATO's most ambitious "out of area" contingency -- the alliance has revealed the extent to which its capabilities and its cohesion have eroded.
Present-day NATO is a shadow of what it once was. Calling it a successful alliance today is the equivalent of calling General Motors a successful car company -- it privileges nostalgia over self-awareness.

Us Withdraw From Nato - How do we save NATO? We quit - Los Angeles Times

Why are we in Nato in the first place, we can't afford these interventions anymore, let Europe deal with its own mess, if France (Ivory Coast 2?) and the UK want a war with Libya let them, and when they screw up they will be to blame.

Which part of the phrase 'United Nations' is above your intellectual paygrade? It's not the UK and France. It's the international community. We are part of that community. And, frankly, given what happened last time we went for 'isolationism', I don't think we can afford not to be part of it.

 

[Trajan]

If Ghaddafi bombs the shit out of rebels (terrorists who take-up arms against state-authority), he is right to do so. That's no civilians.

Of which chart are you speaking, can you link it?

I am sorry ekrem but there are so many libya threads, it would probably take me an hour or 2 to find ....sorry.