To strike or not to strike: row about Libya’s issue inside NATO

[Casper]

Main conflict within NATO was between the European countries, on the one side, and Turkey (a NATO, but not yet an EU member state), on the other. Ankara was, for some time, against military intervention in Libya, and used the platform of NATO to voice its opinion. Eventually, however, Turkey approved NATO's engagement in Libya – probably in large part because the Arab League has been a surprisingly vocal supporter of the military enforcement of the no-fly zone.

Another major diplomatic scandal in the West had less to do with NATO taking over command of the allied activities in Libya than with France's initial unilateral decision to intervene militarily in Libya, without consulting Germany. The German government was unhappy about this turn of events, and voiced its disapproval. On the other hand, Germany made it clear that it was willing to support the coalition indirectly, even before NATO's decision to take over the operation.

This point of view was expressed by Andreas Umland in his article "Libya: it is a different situation" originally published on ValdaiClub.com

 

[waltky]

Wonder how much the others are chippin' in?...

Pentagon: Libya Mission Has Cost U.S. $550M So Far
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Washington (AP) - The military intervention in Libya has cost the Pentagon an extra $550 million so far, mostly for bombs and missiles, officials said Tuesday.

The figure is not a full picture of the price tag for the operation in that it does not include such money as pay for U.S. sailors, airmen and other forces, who would have been deployed somewhere in the world anyway, officials said. But it is the first official figure released on the cost of setting up the no-fly zone in the North African nation and protecting civilians from strongman Moammar Gadhafi as he resists a movement to oust him. Of the $550 million in added spending through Monday, about 60 percent was "for munitions, the remaining costs are for higher operating tempo" of U.S. forces and of getting them there, Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Tuesday.

As of Monday, the 10th day of the intervention, the U.S. had launched 192 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles from naval positions in the Mediterranean Sea -- at a cost of about $1 million to $1.5 million each. The U.S. also had flown 983 sorties, 370 of those bombing missions against Gadhafi military sites and forces and the rest for surveillance, refueling and so on. The spending only addresses the U.S. part of the costs in Libya, where an international coalition has been operating and NATO is now taking over command.

"Future costs are highly uncertain," Kesler said. But officials estimate that they'll see added costs of about $40 million over the next three weeks as U.S. forces are reduced and NATO assumes more responsibility for the operation started March 19, she said. After that, officials expect to spend about $40 million a month, "if U.S. forces stay at the levels currently planned and the operation continues," Kesler said. With the U.S. already stretching to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amid difficult financial times, the operation has drawn mixed opinions among lawmakers, including one who estimated last week that Libya could be a $1 billion campaign.

Source

See also:

Key US lawmaker opposes arming Libya rebels
30 Mar.`11 WASHINGTON — A key US lawmaker said Wednesday he opposed arming Libyan rebels until the United States knows more about them, warning those weapons might "later fall into the hands of bad actors."

"We need to be very careful before rushing into a decision that could come back to haunt us," House Intelligence Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, a Republican, said in a statement. His comments came as lawmakers wrestled with how best to help insurgents against embattled Libyan strongman Moamer Kadhafi's four-decade rule and bolster efforts to protect civilians from his troops.

Some in the US Congress have called for arming the rebels, saying their outgunned, ragtag forces are no match for Kadhafi's loyalists, while others have warned that US weapons could end up in the hands of Islamist extremists. Similar divisions have emerged among Washington and its allies, with key leaders including President Barack Obama refusing to rule in, or out, such a step. NATO's top commander said Tuesday that intelligence reporting on Libya's rebels has shown "flickers" of an Al-Qaeda or Hezbollah presence but that the opposition leaders appear "responsible."

"It's safe to say what the rebels stand against, but we are a long way from an understanding of what they stand for," said Rogers. "Even if you think you know them, you can't guarantee that those weapons won't later fall into the hands of bad actors," said Rogers. "We don't have to look very far back in history to find examples of the unintended consequences of passing out advanced weapons to a group of fighters we didn't know as well as we should have," he said.

Source

 

[Casper]

That's true. Each Tomahawk costs a bunch of bucks... And yankees spend them on overdated T-55 and rusty trucks

 

[ekrem]

That's true. Each Tomahawk costs a bunch of bucks... And yankees spend them on overdated T-55 and rusty trucks

There's no summer sale price reduction, military operations cost what they cost.

Pentagon: Libya Mission Has Cost U.S. $550M So Far
Tuesday, March 29, 2011 Washington (AP) - The military intervention in Libya has cost the Pentagon an extra $550 million so far, mostly for bombs and missiles, officials said Tuesday.

The figure is not a full picture of the price tag for the operation in that it does not include such money as pay for U.S. sailors, airmen and other forces, who would have been deployed somewhere in the world anyway, officials said. But it is the first official figure released on the cost of setting up the no-fly zone in the North African nation and protecting civilians from strongman Moammar Gadhafi as he resists a movement to oust him. Of the $550 million in added spending through Monday, about 60 percent was "for munitions, the remaining costs are for higher operating tempo" of U.S. forces and of getting them there, Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler, a Pentagon spokeswoman, said Tuesday.

As of Monday, the 10th day of the intervention, the U.S. had launched 192 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles from naval positions in the Mediterranean Sea -- at a cost of about $1 million to $1.5 million each. The U.S. also had flown 983 sorties, 370 of those bombing missions against Gadhafi military sites and forces and the rest for surveillance, refueling and so on. The spending only addresses the U.S. part of the costs in Libya, where an international coalition has been operating and NATO is now taking over command.

"Future costs are highly uncertain," Kesler said. But officials estimate that they'll see added costs of about $40 million over the next three weeks as U.S. forces are reduced and NATO assumes more responsibility for the operation started March 19, she said. After that, officials expect to spend about $40 million a month, "if U.S. forces stay at the levels currently planned and the operation continues," Kesler said. With the U.S. already stretching to pay for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan amid difficult financial times, the operation has drawn mixed opinions among lawmakers, including one who estimated last week that Libya could be a $1 billion campaign.

Source

550 Million $ is nothing in proportion to US's budget.
If this figure shows anything, then that Libya is a military midget whom you can deprive it's claim on its airspace with 550 Million $ worth of Bombs and Missiles.