(OT) Stratfor: The Consequences of Intervening in Syria

"Unintended" consequences of indirect intervention in Syria, as per Stratfor, with a short summary of the situation in Africa as introduction.

From Stratfor, by Scott Stewart (1/31/2013; part, emphasis is mine):

The Consequences of Intervening in Syria

The French military's current campaign to dislodge jihadist militants from northern Mali and the recent high-profile attack against a natural gas facility in Algeria are both directly linked to the foreign intervention in Libya that overthrew the Gadhafi regime. There is also a strong connection between these events and foreign powers' decision not to intervene in Mali when the military conducted a coup in March 2012. The coup occurred as thousands of heavily armed Tuareg tribesmen were returning home to northern Mali after serving in Moammar Gadhafi's military, and the confluence of these events resulted in an implosion of the Malian military and a power vacuum in the north. Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and other jihadists were able to take advantage of this situation to seize power in the northern part of the African nation.

As all these events transpire in northern Africa, another type of foreign intervention is occurring in Syria. Instead of direct foreign military intervention, like that taken against the Gadhafi regime in Libya in 2011, or the lack of intervention seen in Mali in March 2012, the West -- and its Middle Eastern partners -- have pursued a middle-ground approach in Syria. That is, these powers are providing logistical aid to the various Syrian rebel factions but are not intervening directly.

Just as there were repercussions for the decisions to conduct a direct intervention in Libya and not to intervene in Mali, there will be repercussions for the partial intervention approach in Syria. Those consequences are becoming more apparent as the crisis drags on.

Intervention in Syria

For more than a year now, countries such as the United States, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Qatar and European states have been providing aid to the Syrian rebels. Much of this aid has been in the form of humanitarian assistance, providing things such as shelter, food and medical care for refugees. Other aid has helped provide the rebels with non-lethal military supplies such as radios and ballistic vests. But a review of the weapons spotted on the battlefield reveals that the rebels are also receiving an increasing number of lethal supplies.

For example, there have been numerous videos released showing Syrian rebels using weapons such as the M79 Osa rocket launcher, the RPG-22, the M-60 recoilless rifle and the RBG-6 multiple grenade launcher. The Syrian government has also released videos of these weapons after seizing them in arms caches. What is so interesting about these weapons is that they were not in the Syrian military's inventory prior to the crisis, and they all likely were purchased from Croatia. We have also seen many reports and photos of Syrian rebels carrying Austrian Steyr Aug rifles, and the Swiss government has complained that Swiss-made hand grenades sold to the United Arab Emirates are making their way to the Syrian rebels.

With the Syrian rebel groups using predominantly second-hand weapons from the region, weapons captured from the regime, or an assortment of odd ordnance they have manufactured themselves, the appearance and spread of these exogenous weapons in rebel arsenals over the past several months is at first glance evidence of external arms supply. The appearance of a single Steyr Aug or RBG-6 on the battlefield could be an interesting anomaly, but the variety and concentration of these weapons seen in Syria are well beyond the point where they could be considered coincidental.

This means that the current level of external intervention in Syria is similar to the level exercised against the Soviet Union and its communist proxies following the Soviet intervention in Afghanistan. The external supporters are providing not only training, intelligence and assistance, but also weapons -- exogenous weapons that make the external provision of weapons obvious to the world. It is also interesting that in Syria, like Afghanistan, two of the major external supporters are Washington and Riyadh -- though in Syria they are joined by regional powers such as Turkey, Jordan, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, rather than Pakistan.

In Afghanistan, the Saudis and the Americans allowed their partners in Pakistan's Inter-Services Intelligence agency to determine which of the myriad militant groups in Afghanistan received the bulk of the funds and weapons they were providing. This resulted in two things. First, the Pakistanis funded and armed groups that they thought they could best use as surrogates in Afghanistan after the Soviet withdrawal. Second, they pragmatically tended to funnel cash and weapons to the groups that were the most successful on the battlefield -- groups such as those led by Gulbuddin Hekmatyar and Jalaluddin Haqqani, whose effectiveness on the battlefield was tied directly to their zealous theology that made waging jihad against the infidels a religious duty and death during such a struggle the ultimate accomplishment.

A similar process has been taking place for nearly two years in Syria. The opposition groups that have been the most effective on the battlefield have tended to be the jihadist-oriented groups such as Jabhat al-Nusra. Not surprisingly, one reason for their effectiveness was the skills and tactics they learned fighting the coalition forces in Iraq. Yet despite this, the Saudis -- along with the Qataris and the Emiratis -- have been arming and funding the jihadist groups in large part because of their success on the battlefield. As my colleague Kamran Bokhari noted in February 2012, the situation in Syria was providing an opportunity for jihadists, even without external support. In the fractured landscape of the Syrian opposition, the unity of purpose and battlefield effectiveness of the jihadists was in itself enough to ensure that these groups attracted a large number of new recruits.

But that is not the only factor conducive to the radicalization of Syrian rebels. First, war -- and particularly a brutal, drawn-out war -- tends to make extremists out of the fighters involved in it. Think Stalingrad, the Cold War struggles in Central America or the ethnic cleansing in the Balkans following the dissolution of Yugoslavia; this degree of struggle and suffering tends to make even non-ideological people ideological. In Syria, we have seen many secular Muslims become stringent jihadists. Second, the lack of hope for an intervention by the West removed any impetus for maintaining a secular narrative. Many fighters who had pinned their hopes on NATO were greatly disappointed and angered that their suffering was ignored. It is not unusual for Syrian fighters to say something akin to, "What has the West done for us? We now have only God."

When these ideological factors were combined with the infusion of money and arms that has been channeled to jihadist groups in Syria over the past year, the growth of Syrian jihadist groups accelerated dramatically. Not only are they a factor on the battlefield today, but they also will be a force to be reckoned with in the future.

Read more: The Consequences of Intervening in Syria | Stratfor

(The Consequences of Intervening in Syria is republished with permission of Stratfor.)

I have heard other stories (here, here, and here for example) about Syrian jihadist "rebels", but not from Stratfor.

Now comes Israel.

Tweet

Reuters on Benghazi Consulate Attack: White House Knew, Within 2 Hours

that "an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack" via the emails from the State Department's Operations Center.

That's in addition to the near-real-time footage taken by the Predator drone over the Benghazi Consulate as the attack was happening on September 11, 2012.

From Reuters (10/24/2012):

White House told of militant claim two hours after Libya attack: emails

By Mark Hosenball

(Reuters) - Officials at the White House and State Department were advised two hours after attackers assaulted the U.S. diplomatic mission in Benghazi, Libya, on September 11 that an Islamic militant group had claimed credit for the attack, official emails show.

The emails, obtained by Reuters from government sources not connected with U.S. spy agencies or the State Department and who requested anonymity, specifically mention that the Libyan group called Ansar al-Sharia had asserted responsibility for the attacks.

The brief emails also show how U.S. diplomats described the attack, even as it was still under way, to Washington.

U.S. Ambassador Christopher Stevens and three other Americans were killed in the Benghazi assault, which President Barack Obama and other U.S. officials ultimately acknowledged was a "terrorist" attack carried out by militants with suspected links to al Qaeda affiliates or sympathizers.

Administration spokesmen, including White House spokesman Jay Carney, citing an unclassified assessment prepared by the CIA, maintained for days that the attacks likely were a spontaneous protest against an anti-Muslim film.

While officials did mention the possible involvement of "extremists," they did not lay blame on any specific militant groups or possible links to al Qaeda or its affiliates until intelligence officials publicly alleged that on September 28.

There were indications that extremists with possible al Qaeda connections were involved, but also evidence that the attacks could have erupted spontaneously, they said, adding that government experts wanted to be cautious about pointing fingers prematurely.

U.S. intelligence officials have emphasized since shortly after the attack that early intelligence reporting about the attack was mixed.

Spokesmen for the White House and State Department had no immediate response to requests for comments on the emails.

MISSIVES FROM LIBYA

The records obtained by Reuters consist of three emails dispatched by the State Department's Operations Center to multiple government offices, including addresses at the White House, Pentagon, intelligence community and FBI, on the afternoon of September 11.

The first email, timed at 4:05 p.m. Washington time - or 10:05 p.m. Benghazi time, 20-30 minutes after the attack on the U.S. diplomatic mission allegedly began - carried the subject line "U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi Under Attack" and the notation "SBU", meaning "Sensitive But Unclassified."

The text said the State Department's regional security office had reported that the diplomatic mission in Benghazi was "under attack. Embassy in Tripoli reports approximately 20 armed people fired shots; explosions have been heard as well."

The message continued: "Ambassador Stevens, who is currently in Benghazi, and four ... personnel are in the compound safe haven. The 17th of February militia is providing security support."

A second email, headed "Update 1: U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi" and timed 4:54 p.m. Washington time, said that the Embassy in Tripoli had reported that "the firing at the U.S. Diplomatic Mission in Benghazi had stopped and the compound had been cleared." It said a "response team" was at the site attempting to locate missing personnel.

A third email, also marked SBU and sent at 6:07 p.m. Washington time, carried the subject line: "Update 2: Ansar al-Sharia Claims Responsibility for Benghazi Attack."

The message reported: "Embassy Tripoli reports the group claimed responsibility on Facebook and Twitter and has called for an attack on Embassy Tripoli."

While some information identifying recipients of this message was redacted from copies of the messages obtained by Reuters, a government source said that one of the addresses to which the message was sent was the White House Situation Room, the president's secure command post.

Other addressees included intelligence and military units as well as one used by the FBI command center, the source said.

(Full article at the link)

Tweet

AP: White House Considering Retaliatory Strike in Libya

Wag the dog.

From Boston Globe, citing AP (10/16/2012):

White House faces dilemma in Libya attack response
Strike forces, drones on alert in North Africa

WASHINGTON — The White House has put special operations strike forces on standby and moved drones into the skies above Africa, ready to strike militant targets from Libya to Mali — if investigators can find the Al Qaeda-linked group responsible for the death of the US ambassador and three other Americans in Libya.

But officials say the administration is weighing whether the short-term payoff of exacting retribution on Al Qaeda is worth the risk that such strikes could elevate the group’s profile in the region, alienate governments the United States needs to fight it in the future, and do little to slow the growing terror threat in North Africa.

Meanwhile, Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton is taking responsibility for security at a US consulate in Libya where an assault by extremists on the anniversary of the Sept. 11 attacks killed the four Americans.

Pushing back against Republican criticism of the Obama administration for its handling of the situation, Clinton said Monday in Lima, Peru, that security at all of America’s diplomatic missions abroad is her job, not that of the White House. She made the comments in several television interviews.

‘‘I take responsibility,’’ she told CNN. ‘‘I’m in charge of the State Department’s 60,000-plus people all over the world (at) 275 posts. The president and the vice president wouldn’t be knowledgeable about specific decisions that are made by security professionals. They’re the ones who weigh all of the threats and the risks and the needs and make a considered decision.’’

(Full article at the link)

I still remember how the government and the media put the spin on the news of the attack. It was blamed on the anti-Islam movie, or that's how they wanted us to sort of believe.

Tweet

Gerald Celente Loses It, Rants Against Cameron, Sarkozy, Obama and "Three Witches of MacBeth", Calls for People to Stand Up

(I don't think I've ever seen him like this before.)

He says they are leading us to the First Great War of the 21st century:

""Oh what should I do?" What should you do? Grow up, you are adults!"

"Use your brain, you are adults. Your life is on the line!"

Tweet

US Admin Clueless On #Libya

Just the headlines for you, but they seem to be saying "It's above everyone's pay grade" - from the Prez down to assistants to undersecretaries of undersecretaries of secretaries of Department of [plug in your favorite department name] to figure out this undeclared war on Libya.

Headlines are from Drudge Report:

NOT DAYS, NOT WEEKS -- LIBYA OP TO LAST MONTHS

GATES: Libya Posed No Threat to U.S., Was Not 'Vital National Interest' to Intervene...

OBAMA: 'WE'RE SUCCEEDING IN OUR MISSION'...

Clinton: U.S. won't intervene in Syria...


Let's see, one thing, only one thing seems certain these days.... the stock market will go up on Monday!

Tweet

#Libya: US Bombed Wreckage of F-15 Fighter Jet That Went Down

See what happens when the US goes in...

Daily Mail (3/22/2011):

US BOMBED U.S. rescue chopper shoots six Libyan villagers as they welcome pilots of downed Air Force jet

Six Libyan villagers are recovering in hospital after being shot by American soldiers coming in to rescue the U.S. pilots whose plane crash-landed in a field.

The helicopter strafed the ground as it landed in a field outside Benghazi beside the downed U.S. Air Force F-15E Eagle which ran into trouble during bombing raid last night.

And a handful of locals who had come to greet the pilots were hit - among them a young boy who may have to have a leg amputated because of injuries caused by a bullet wound.

Reuters Africa (3/23/2011):

WRECKAGE OVERNIGHT OF F-15 FIGHTER JET THAT WENT DOWN IN LIBYA-OFFICIAL

And the US Defense Secretary admits he doesn't really know what the hell they are doing....

Bloomberg (3/22/2011):

“This command-and-control business is complicated, and we haven’t done something like this kind of on-the-fly before,” U.S. Defense Secretary Robert Gates told reporters in Moscow today. “It’s not surprising to me that it would take a few days to get it all sorted out.”

Hmmmm. Haven't your department been doing this kind of thing for 10 years now, Mr. Gates? It sure looks like that to me in Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, "-stans" in Central Asia, now Libya.

Tweet

#Libya Military Intervention: Japan All For It, China Regrets

Japan, ever a faithful ally of the US, is all for the military intervention in Libya by the US, France, and Great Britain.

On the other hand, China, who abstained from the UN Security Council vote that authorized the intervention along with 4 other nations (actually, those who abstained were BRIC nations plus Germany.... interesting), has expressed regret, and hopes "the situation in Libya stabilizes soon, and that the armed conflict will not expand further and the civilian deaths be prevented," according to Yomiuri Shinbun (in Japanese; 3/20/2011)

I have a decidedly mixed feeling. Much I hate the Gaddafis killing Libyans with abandon, what are the 120+ Tomahawk missiles for? "Shock and awe" Libya version, using up old inventory of Tomahawks by the US military? Like Serbia received heavy bombing with depleted uranium...

I am particularly disturbed when there is not a peep from the Obama admin about Saudi Arabia, whose military is killing protesters in neighboring Bahrain. It is almost as if the US is using Libya as a cover to let Saudis do what they're doing without attracting international attention. Wag the dog. Three-card Monte. (Tinfoil hat on.)

Tweet

Stratfor on Obama's 3rd War, #Libya

The Libyan War of 2011

By George Friedman, March 19, 2011

The Libyan war has now begun. It pits a coalition of European powers plus the United States, a handful of Arab states and rebels in Libya against the Libyan government. The long-term goal, unspoken but well understood, is regime change — displacing the government of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and replacing it with a new regime built around the rebels.

The mission is clearer than the strategy, and that strategy can’t be figured out from the first moves. The strategy might be the imposition of a no-fly zone, the imposition of a no-fly zone and attacks against Libya’s command-and-control centers, or these two plus direct ground attacks on Gadhafi’s forces. These could also be combined with an invasion and occupation of Libya.

The question, therefore, is not the mission but the strategy to be pursued. How far is the coalition, or at least some of its members, prepared to go to effect regime change and manage the consequences following regime change? How many resources are they prepared to provide and how long are they prepared to fight? It should be remembered that in Iraq and Afghanistan the occupation became the heart of the war, and regime change was merely the opening act. It is possible that the coalition partners haven’t decided on the strategy yet, or may not be in agreement. Let’s therefore consider the first phases of the war, regardless of how far they are prepared to go in pursuit of the mission.

Like previous wars since 1991, this war began with a very public buildup in which the coalition partners negotiated the basic framework, sought international support and authorization from multinational organizations and mobilized forces. This was done quite publicly because the cost of secrecy (time and possible failure) was not worth what was to be gained: surprise. Surprise matters when the enemy can mobilize resistance. Gadhafi was trapped and has limited military capabilities, so secrecy was unnecessary.

While all this was going on and before final decisions were made, special operations forces were inserted in Libya on two missions. First, to make contact with insurgent forces to prepare them for coming events, create channels of communications and logistics and create a post-war political framework. The second purpose was to identify targets for attack and conduct reconnaissance of those targets that provided as up-to-date information as possible. This, combined with air and space reconnaissance, served as the foundations of the war. We know British SAS operators were in Libya and suspect other countries’ special operations forces and intelligence services were also operating there.

War commences with two sets of attacks. The first attacks are decapitation attacks designed to destroy or isolate the national command structure. These may also include strikes designed to kill leaders such as Gadhafi and his sons or other senior leaders. These attacks depend on specific intelligence on facilities, including communications, planning and so on along with detailed information on the location of the leadership. Attacks on buildings are carried out from the air but not particularly with cruise missile because they are especially accurate if the targets are slow, and buildings aren’t going anywhere. At the same time, aircraft are orbiting out of range of air defenses awaiting information on more mobile targets and if such is forthcoming, they come into range and fire appropriate munitions at the target. The type of aircraft used depends on the robustness of the air defenses, the time available prior to attack and the munitions needed. They can range from conventional fighters or stealth strategic aircraft like the U.S. B-2 bomber (if the United States authorized its use). Special operations forces might be on the ground painting the target for laser-guided munitions, which are highly accurate but require illumination.

(click here to enlarge image)

At the same time these attacks are under way, attacks on airfields, fuel storage depots and the like are being targeted to ground the Libyan air force. Air or cruise missile attacks are also being carried out on radars of large and immobile surface-to-air (SAM) missile sites. Simultaneously, “wild weasel” aircraft — aircraft configured for the suppression of enemy air defenses — will be on patrol for more mobile SAM systems to locate and destroy. This becomes a critical part of the conflict. Being mobile, detecting these weapons systems on the ground is complex. They engage when they want to, depending on visual perception of opportunities. Therefore the total elimination of anti-missile systems is in part up to the Libyans. Between mobile systems and man-portable air-defense missiles, the threat to allied aircraft can persist for quite a while even if Gadhafi’s forces might have difficulty shooting anything down.

This is the part that the United States in particular and the West in general is extremely good at. But it is the beginning of the war. Gadhafi’s primary capabilities are conventional armor and particularly artillery. Destroying his air force and isolating his forces will not by itself win the war. The war is on the ground. The question is the motivation of his troops: If they perceive that surrender is unacceptable or personally catastrophic, they may continue to fight. At that point the coalition must decide if it intends to engage and destroy Gadhafi’s ground forces from the air. This can be done, but it is never a foregone conclusion that it will work. Moreover, this is the phase at which civilian casualties begin to mount. It is a paradox of warfare instigated to end human suffering that the means of achieving this can sometimes impose substantial human suffering itself. This is not merely a theoretical statement. It is at this point at which supporters of the war who want to end suffering may turn on the political leaders for not ending suffering without cost. It should be remembered that Saddam Hussein was loathed universally but those who loathed him were frequently not willing to impose the price of overthrowing him. The Europeans in particular are sensitive to this issue.

The question then becomes the extent to which this remains an air operation, as Kosovo was, or becomes a ground operation. Kosovo is the ideal, but Gadhafi is not Slobodan Milosevic and he may not feel he has anywhere to go if he surrenders. For him the fight may be existential, whereas for Milosevic it was not. He and his followers may resist. This is the great unknown. The choice here is to maintain air operations for an extended period of time without clear results, or invade. This raises the question of whose troops would invade. Egypt appears ready but there is long animosity between the two countries, and its actions might not be viewed as liberation. The Europeans could do so. It is difficult to imagine Obama adopting a third war in Muslim world as his own. This is where the coalition is really tested.

If there is an invasion, it is likely to succeed. The question then becomes whether Gadhafi’s forces move into opposition and insurgency. This again depends on morale but also on behavior. The Americans forced an insurgency in Iraq by putting the Baathists into an untenable position. In Afghanistan the Taliban gave up formal power without having been decisively defeated. They regrouped, reformed and returned. It is not known to us what Gadhafi can do or not do. It is clear that it is the major unknown.

The problem in Iraq was not the special operations forces. It was not in the decapitation strikes or suppression of enemy air defenses. It was not in the defeat of the Iraqi army on the ground. It was in the occupation, when the enemy reformed and imposed an insurgency on the United States that it found extraordinarily difficult to deal with.

Therefore the successes of the coming day will tell us nothing. Even if Gadhafi surrenders or is killed, even if no invasion is necessary save a small occupation force to aid the insurgents, the possibility of an insurgency is there. We will not know if there will be an insurgency until after it begins. Therefore, the only thing that would be surprising about this phase of the operation is if it failed.

The decision has been made that the mission is regime change in Libya. The strategic sequence is the routine buildup to war since 1991, this time with a heavier European component. The early days will go extremely well but will not define whether or not the war is successful. The test will come if a war designed to stop human suffering begins to inflict human suffering. That is when the difficult political decisions have to be made and when we will find out whether the strategy, the mission and the political will fully match up.

Read more: The Libyan War of 2011 | STRATFOR

Tweet

My "Pet Goat" Moment for Obama Is Right About Now

Obama Family trip to Latin America looks more and more like George W. Bush reading the story of "my pet goat" to primary school kiddies in Florida on 9/11.

In a way, it's far more egregious. Bush was informed of the attack in the middle of the reading. Obama has had the situation - Libya, Bahrain, Yemen, not to mention his pet wars in Afghanistan and Pakistan - for weeks, with the last week escalating to frenzy with added mix of the Japanese nuclear crisis. And what does he do? Go on a foreign trip. Just like Bush the Lesser kept reading the story to kids.

Did Obama or his handlers ever think of cancelling the trip? Is he thinking of cutting the trip short and head back home? Nope. His handlers want to enjoy Rio, too.

Browsing Antiwar.com, looking at headlines. Shaking my head in disbelief that the Prez of the USSA is taking his entire family (the wife, two kids, and the wife's mother) on a trip to Latin America in the middle of all these.. Unreal. I guess this "son of Gaddafi" is as unreal and beyond comprehension just like the "daddy".

Antiwar.com headlines:

US Missiles Hit Gadhafi's Air Defenses

46 Killed as Yemen Forces Attack Protesters

Saudi King Warns of Moves Against 'Sedition'

Bahrain Demolishes Key Monument to Spite Protesters

Pakistan Calls for Revenge After Massive US Drone Strike

Marines Use Destruction to 'Win' in Afghanistan

To the Shores of Tripoli Nebojsa Malic on blundering into Libya

Tweet

#Gaddafi to #Obama: You Will Still Be My Son...

And that "son" is having a good time in Brazil with his family. (People who voted for this guy and who still supports this guy, I don't understand you at all.)

This is creepy..

From The Times of India (3/19/2011):

CAIRO: Calling Barack Obama as "our son", Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi sent a message to the US President defending his decision to attack the rebels fighting to overthrow him.

Gaddafi (68) also wrote a letter to the French and British leaders, and the UN Secretary General, saying the Security Council resolution was "void" and violated the UN charter, warning them that they would "regret" any intervention.

....Trying to strike a personal note, Gaddafi prefaced his letter saying, "To our son, his excellency, Mr Barack 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."

Tweet

#Libya: 110 Tomahawk Missiles Launched from US and UK Ships

From Daily Mail (3/19/2011):

Coalition troops fired more than 110 cruise missiles at Libyan targets in 'only the first phase' of a multiphase operation, a senior U.S. military official said on Saturday.

Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff, declined to discuss what the next phase of the operations would be. He said more than 20 sites had been targeted in coalition strikes so far.

Tomahawk missiles were first introduced by General Dynamics in 1970's, have been in service since 1983. They are now made by Raytheon and Boeing (McDonnell Douglas).

It's $569,000 a missile - so we've blown $62.59 million. Quite a firework.

Raytheon's stock symbol is RTN (on NYSE), Boeing's is BA (on NYSE).

Tweet

#UN Authorizes No-Fly Zone Over #Libya (Updated)

(Update)

Voted Yes: United States, Britain, France, Bosnia&Herzegovina, Colombia, Gabon, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal, South Africa

Abstained: Russia, China, Germany, Brazil, India

Get those sick Gaddafis!!

Just heard on Fox News: Pilots of Britain and France will go in tonight.

------------------------------------------

From Al Jazeera (3/17/2011):

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) has voted on a resolution authorising a no-fly zone over Libya and "all necessary measures" - code for military action - to protect citizens.

Ten of the council's 15 members voted in favour of the resolution, with Russia, China and Germany the five that abstained.

No votes were recorded against the resolution, which was co-sponsored by France, Britain, Lebanon and the United States.

The resolution fulfills a long-standing demand from pro-democracy opposition forces in Libya asking for a no-fly zone to be established in order to prevent Muammar Gaddafi, the Libyan leader, from using fighter jets to bombard their positions, as they have been doing.

It comes just a few hours after Gaddafi warned residents of Benghazi, an opposition stronghold, that his forces would show "no mercy" in an impending assault on the city.

The draft of the resolution was prepared by the United Kingdom, France and Lebanon, and in the hours ahead of the meeting the United States appeared to have changed its stance on the issue by actively backing calls for not just a no-fly zone, but also strikes against Libyan military targets that could be mobilised against civilians.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Alain Juppe, the French foreign minister, said there was not much time left for the international community to act.

"France is very much involved in this action and has prepared the draft resolution. We have one goal… we want to stop the attacks by the Gaddafi regime against civilian populations.

"And it's a question of days or hours because the pressure against Benghazi, especially, is now very tough."

The Libyan defence ministry on Thursday, before the vote, warned that any military intervention in Libya would endanger air and sea traffic in the Mediterranean Sea.

In a statement released by the state-run Jana news agency, the ministry said that both civilian and military targets in the Mediterranean will be attacked.

Tweet

#Libya: Benghazi Celebration vs Libya State TV

Screen shot from Al Jazeera Live Feed. LOL.

Tweet

#Libya: #UN Vote On No-Fly Zone 10 in Favor, 5 Abstained

That's what I'm seeing on tweets. Will find a news link when it appears.

They are throwing the biggest party ever in Benghazi, says @iyad_elbaghdadi.

Tweet

(#Libya) What's Stopping Us From ....?

Doing the citizen-level military intervention?

(Image from Al Jazeera Libya Blog 3/10/2011)

By "us", I am talking about "the rest of us" outside the national governments. Private citizens of the world who want the Libyan opposition forces to win over Gaddafi's forces.

What's stopping us from chipping in and having someone, some entity, arrange to purchase Stinger missiles and anti-tank missiles and deliver them to the Libyans fighting against Gaddafi? Maybe we could find cheap Chinese or Russian knockoffs...

Instead of signing petitions calling for the UN or NATO or the US and its allies to impose a no-fly zone, when a no-fly zone implemented by such an international coalition in the past was an abysmal failure, couldn't we donate whatever money we feel like it and buy ammo and missiles and give them to Libyans so they can fight?

We could deliver them relatively safely and quite effectively by scattering them from an airplane, instead of sending them in a convoy overland, which might attract attacks from Gaddafi's forces.

Gaddafi's air force can only effectively destroy clusters of buildings - city centers, oil refinery complexes. But to use his Migs and Mirages to pick out the opposition fighters scattered on the vast expanse of Libyan desert? Opposition fighters can take them out with Stingers.

We could even pitch in to hire "mercenaries" for the opposition. The US has fine outfits like Blackwater.

About the only thing that the national governments should do, I think, is what France did: establish formal diplomatic ties with the opposition council.

That's my thought, or fantasy, as an arm-chair strategist who has never fired a gun...

Tweet

Obama Makes a Remark at Bullying Prevention Conference

While the president of France is acting like the president of France, the president of the United States is hosting a conference on school bullying, at the White House. That's almost all of precious little he does today.

I guess he has to recover from the TV-viewing party last night.

From the White House schedule for today:

10:00 am	The President and the First Lady meet with students and parents from the Conference on Bullying Prevention Oval Office
10:35 am	The President and the First Lady deliver remarks at the Conference on Bullying Prevention East Room
2:05 pm	The President holds a meeting on the Elementary and Secondary Education Act Roosevelt Room
3:05 pm	The President meets with Secretary of the Treasury Geithner Oval Office Closed Press

(Libyans, you DO NOT want this guy to get involved in your fight against Gaddafi. It's near-impossible to get him involved in anything serious. Stick with the French.)

Tweet

(#Libya) France Becomes the First Country to Officially Recognize Libya's Opposition

Good for France!

France 24 reports, citing AP (3/10/2011):

France is the first country to formally recognise the legitimacy of Libya's rebel National Transitional Council and will open an embassy in Benghazi, the government announced after meeting with NTC representatives in Paris Thursday

Libya’s opposition battled for military and diplomatic advantage against Moammar Gadhafi’s embattled regime on Thursday, winning official recognition from France and hitting government forces with heavy weapons on the road to the capital.

France became the first country to formally recognize the rebels’ newly created Interim Governing Council, saying it planned to exchange ambassadors after President Nicolas Sarkozy met with two representatives of the group based in the eastern Libyan city of Benghazi.

Meanwhile, the NATO hemmed and hawed but no action other than wringing their collective hands and move some ships in the Mediterranean.

According to AFP, French president Nicolas Sarkozy will propose air strikes on Libya:

French President Nicolas Sarkozy will propose air strikes on Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi's command headquarters to EU leaders, a source close to discussions has told AFP.

At an EU summit on the Libyan crisis, he will propose "striking an extremely limited number of points which are the source of the most deadly operations" by forces loyal to Gaddafi, the source, who asked not to be named, said on Thursday.

The three sites being considered are Gaddafi's Bab al-Azizia command headquarters in Tripoli, a military air base in Syrte, east of Tripoli and another in Sebha in the south, the source said.

Sarkozy's office declined to confirm the claim when contacted by AFP.

I'm not that sure about the air strikes, unless they can be carried out by France alone. I simply do not want the US to be involved in any way, given the track record in the past 50 years.

One thing that is decidedly against the opposition forces is not the lack of air power or training (they seem to be learning very quickly); it's the flat terrain of Libya. It offers hardly any cover for the opposition fighters. Conventional, open battles favor the Gaddafi forces with tanks and jets.

Guerrilla warfare, which has marked many revolutionary wars including that of Afghanistan and of the United States, is not really possible on a flat land.

Tweet

#Libya, Fight On

Watching Al Jazeera's streaming live coverage on my PC. The reporter on the front line of the battle in Ras Lanuf, rockets and mortars flying over her head. "We'd better move." The crew hastily run for safety. They go back to the pickup truck. As they ride away, the camera shows the face of a young man on the back of the truck, smiling beatifically. He looks so happy and excited to do what he's doing - fight.

Fight on. As long as you do not stop fighting, there's hope.

Here's the report from Jacky Rowland of Al Jazeera, from Ras Lanuf:

Tweet

(#Libya) US Denies Landing of the Plane Carrying Gaddafi's New UN Ambassador, Invites Gaddafi's Envoys to EU/NATO Meetings

and Obama is hosting a TV-viewing party to cheer for his favorite basketball team.

What's wrong with this picture?

The US is picking the sides on Libya by denying the landing of the plane carrying Libya's ambassador to the UN, not to the US, just because he was appointed by Gaddafi. Has the US severed diplomatic ties with Libya? No, it hasn't. There was a talk of "reviewing" the diplomatic ties, but that was as far as it went, reviewing.

Then the same US is apparently behind inviting the Gaddafi's envoys to the EU and the NATO meetings, according to Al Jazeera, while the liberal wing of the European Parliament has invited the opposition envoys.

Can you say "incoherent"? Can you scream "What'cha doin'??"

That's nothing new ever since Obama somehow became the president of the US, but this guy never ceases to disappoint.

Tweet

(#Libya) BBC Arabic Team Detained, Beaten, Mock-Executed by Gaddafi's Forces

After the SAS, now it's BBC's turn. But the BBC Arabic team wasn't as lucky as the SAS, who were caught by the opposition forces.

From BBC Africa (3/9/2011):

Libyan leader Col Muammar Gaddafi's security forces detained and beat up a BBC news team who were trying to reach the strife-torn western city of Zawiya.

The three were beaten with fists, knees and rifles, hooded and subjected to mock executions by members of Libya's army and secret police.

The men were detained on Monday and held for 21 hours, but have now flown out of Libya.

......The three of them were taken to a huge military barracks in Tripoli, where they were blindfolded, handcuffed and beaten.

One of the three, Chris Cobb-Smith, said: "We were lined up against the wall. I was the last in line - facing the wall.

"I looked and I saw a plain-clothes guy with a small sub-machine gun. He put it to everyone's neck. I saw him and he screamed at me.

"Then he walked up to me, put the gun to my neck and pulled the trigger twice. The bullets whisked past my ear. The soldiers just laughed."

They also report on the Libyan detainees and how badly they were treated:

Koraltan said: "I cannot describe how bad it was. Most of them [other detainees] were hooded and handcuffed really tightly, all with swollen hands and broken ribs. They were in agony. They were screaming."

Killani said: "Four of them [detainees] were in a very bad situation. There was evidence of torture on their faces and bodies. One of them said he had at least two broken ribs. I spent at least six hours helping them drink, sleep, urinate and move from one side to another."

A senior Libyan government official later apologised for the BBC team's ordeal.

Just a slight misunderstanding. What of some beating between good friends, anyway? Show of affection, can't you see?

Tweet