What are we doing with Libya?

JBeukema · Apr 5, 2011

Last week, when the Federal Reserve finally released the names of the banks that tapped the central bank's most secret lending program in the wake of the financial crisis many of the expect names were there. Citigroup got over $50 billion in loans. Bank of America was a big borrower, too. Goldman borrowed five times, though the amounts were relatively small. But among the names of banks that got tens of billions in loans from the Fed in order to stay afloat was at least one few expected: The Central Bank of Libya.
In the 18 months following the collapse of Lehman Brothers, a foreign subsidiary of the bank of the government of Muammar Gaddafi received a cumulative $35 billion in short-term loans from the Fed. Libya's Central bank received the loans through a foreign subsidiary called the Arab Banking Corp., which has a branch in New York. At the time of the financial crisis, the bank was 29% owned by the Libyan government. But since then the Libyan government has upped its stake in ABC, as it is known, to 59%. So the main beneficiary of the Fed's help is the Libyan government
Click to expand...

Bailout Revelation: Fed Lent Billions to Save Libyan Bank - The Curious Capitalist - TIME.com

Just what the hell has been going on behind closed doors all this time?

waltky · Apr 12, 2011

Uncle Ferd says dat woulda paid for 608 days in Vietnam...

Pentagon Estimates Libya Costs at $608 Million
Monday, April 11, 2011 Washington (AP) - The Pentagon said Monday the military intervention in Libya cost the U.S. an extra $608 million in the first few of weeks of the operation. Spending is down significantly, though not as much as expected.

Defense Department spokeswoman Navy Cmdr. Kathleen Kesler said it will take several weeks to tally exactly how much has been spent. But $608 million is the price tag officials have estimated through April 4 -- or for 17 days of the mission, the most recent figures available. The estimate shows a large drop from what the U.S. spent in the early days of the multinational operation that started March 19 -- roughly $55 million a day in the first 10 days, then about $8.3 million a day in the seven that followed.

Still, very rough projections late last month estimated costs would decline even more than that as the U.S. handed lead of the operation to NATO. The alliance would also conduct most of the bombing missions. Officials didn't explain what caused the higher-than-expected rate of spending. It's possible at least part is due to the fact that the full transition to NATO went a little slower than expected.

It is the second time the Pentagon has released costs for 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. Officials late last month said the added spending from March 19 through March 28, the first 10 days of the intervention, was $550 million. About 60 percent was for munitions. The remaining costs were for "higher operating tempo" of U.S. forces and of getting them there.

At that time, Kesler said that future costs were "highly uncertain" but that officials estimated they'd see added costs of about $40 million over the following three weeks as U.S. forces reduced their mission to providing refueling, intelligence and other support. But rather than $40 million over three weeks, the cost was $58 million over seven days, according to the new figures through April 4. Officials call it extra costs because it doesn't include complete spending such as paychecks for U.S. sailors, airmen and other forces, who would have been deployed somewhere in the world anyway.

Source
Click to expand...

Avatar4321 · Apr 12, 2011

JBeukema said: ↑

Just what the hell has been going on behind closed doors all this time?
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I don't think we will have a good idea until it's too late.

waltky · Apr 28, 2011

Granny says, "Dat's right - put some boots onna ground an' put one of `em up Kaddafi's butt...

Analysts Say Air Power Alone Will Not Defeat Gadhafi
April 27, 2011 - Warplanes from the North Atlantic Treaty Organization continue to attack the forces of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi. But some analysts say air power alone will not defeat the Libyan leader, and they argue that the Libyan rebels must get better weapons.

For more than a month, NATO fighter jets have been enforcing a United Nations mandated no-fly zone over Libya, preventing Colonel Moammar Gadhafi from using air power against Libyans who have rebelled against him. NATO warplanes have also attacked the Libyan leaders military installations, communication sites and command and control centers. Gadhafis compound in Tripoli has been hit. Some military analysts say the international coalition has in essence become the rebels air force.

Officially, the NATO action is to protect innocent civilians. But several western leaders, including President Barack Obama, have said Gadhafi must go - prompting experts to say the real objective is regime change, something the U.S. president has denied. John Bolton, former U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, says Colonel Gadhafi can be defeated by air power alone. "By attacking where we think Gadhafi is. By attacking the top command of his military. By attacking the regimes military. By attacking government offices and making it clear we are going to shatter that regime and were not going to stop until we succeed," he said.

Issues behind air power

But despite NATO's air strikes, the rebel forces have made little progress in their fight against the Libyan leader. Paul Rogers, Professor of Peace Studies at Bradford University in Britain, says there are two reasons why air power alone will not change the situation. "One is that the forces loyal to Colonel Gadhafi have proved very versatile," he said. "Theyve adapted very quickly having to operate under aggressive air cover, dispersing their equipment, avoiding the use of large items and the rest." "The other issue is that in fact the NATO countries that are primarily involved - that is Britain and France, now that the United States has withdrawn most of its strike aircraft - these countries are actually running really quite badly short of precision-guided munitions they are using. So there is actually a shortage at that level, which may in the next week or two limit the degree of air cover that NATO can actually provide," he added.

Italy, which is providing military bases for logistical support, says it will also participate in air strikes in Libya. But Rogers says the main problem is that the rebel force is disorganized and ill-equipped. "It looks as though quite a number of the military who basically have left the Gadhafi regime have really gone to ground, theyve not formed part of the rebellion," he said. "And essentially what you do have is a lot of enthusiastic, very committed and often very courageous people, but with no real military training and very little in the way of modern armaments. There have been many cases where they may have had machine guns or side arms but without the munitions to use them."

'Game-changing weapons'
Click to expand...

Log in or Sign up

What are we doing with Libya?

JBeukema BANNED

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

Log in or Sign up

What are we doing with Libya?

JBeukema BANNED

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

Avatar4321 Diamond Member Gold Supporting Member

waltky Wise ol' monkey Supporting Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches