No Fly Zone Approved by UN [Archive] - Professional Soldiers ®

Airbornelawyer

03-18-2011, 02:45

I do not get the Democrats' obsession with "green" technology. Electric cars, wind power, solar power, and trains are a bunch of ideological and pie-in-the-sky nonsense. Until you can power a city with wind or solar, it isn't workable. The only reason the Left are so obsessed with trains, and I think this is subonscious on their part, but because trains represent another form of social control.

Letting people drive autos, and big gas-guzzler SUVs and pickups at that, goes against that whole mindset of social control. Autos represent freedom. People get in them and drive wherever they want, whenever they want, and do not answer to the government at all. Trains, on the other hand, go where the government designs the track, and run on the government's schedule.

High-speed rail is not profitable in Europe, the trains are subsidized, and the most unprofitable lines are shut down. The trains are able to still function in Europe however due to:

1) Europe doesn't have a highway system like our Interstate Highway System (thanks to Eisenhower).

2) Europe has a lot more population concentration. Subsidized high-speed rail could maybe work in the Northeastern part of America, but the progressives' dreams of a national network of high-speed trains is not going to work and will just cost states more money than they can afford.

$9 a gallon gasoline, just what we want:rolleyes: What does he mean, somehow? The solution is simple. Implement a high enough VAT tax or raise the fuel tax. Then in addition to hurting the economy and curtailing people's freedom in the name of protecting us, the government will have even more money to spend us further into debt and deficit. Of course, Chu is a staunch believer in global warming, so he is all for regulation of society in this sense.

One thing the Progressives cannot stand is people having access to cheap energy and thus large vehicles. They want people to have to take public transportation in the cities and high-speed rail inbetween the cities, and they want people to only be able to afford the cars they think the people should drive.

I would say that many parts of Europe have a better highway system than our interstate system. I've driven the Autobahns/Autoroutes/Autostradas from Sweden to Italy and from Normandy to Bratislava. The roads are nice in most places and the rest stops clean. Also, especially in France (but not in central Germany), the roads are often not that crowded, because of that nice expensive gas.

France's Autoroutes are also underutilized because they are mostly toll roads. When time is not an issue, I prefer the national and departmental routes because they are cheaper and you can see more history driving through the countryside and villages.

One other big factor about rail besides those you mention: the heavy gas tax and other subsidies for passenger rail aren't just at the expense of POV driving. They are also at the expense of freight. Rail accounts for around 40% of US freight traffic but less than 8% in Europe. Diesel-fume spewing semis pack Europe's highways. Some stretches, like the A3 east of Frankfurt, grind to a halt all the time. The hilly forests of the Spessart between Aschaffenburg and Würzburg are especially bad. The A8 by Stuttgart also gets bad.

That's a big part of the reason why high-speed rail is being pushed in the least needed places. The high-population density NE corridor, which could conceivably provide the passenger volumes to support it, doesn't have anywhere to put new tracks without buying, condemning, appropriating and destroying a lot of real estate already in use. So most passenger rail traffic shares the tracks with freight traffic and is subject to the same speed limits (my few trips on Amtrak's Acela from New York have been agonizingly slow).

So you get the ridiculous only-government-can-be-so-stupid approach of trying to build high-speed rail where you can build it rather than where you should (assuming you wanted it).

Airbornelawyer

03-18-2011, 03:06

While not surprising, I hope it achieves the desired result. Whatever that may be. Kinda wondering if France will be as involved as they are currently posturing.
Current reports mention France, Britain and Norway as preparing for possible strikes. I would assume Italy and the United States would have to be involved, given the base situation. Maybe Egypt and Tunisia could provide support, since the Arab League is on board. Idle speculation on my part at this point.

One aspect of the no-fly zone I'm not sure about: does it also ground rebel forces? I saw a recent report on al-Jazeerah where 3 Libyan naval craft were shelling a rebel-held city and rebel helicopters claimed to have sank two and driven the other away. It would be bad if the no-fly zone just gave Qadhdhafi's tanks and artillery an edge even with the loss of his airpower advantage.

There was also a report yesterday of a Libyan Air Force pilot taking off and dropping his ordnance on his own airstrip and then making a kamikaze attack on one of Qadhdhafi's command centers.

Richard

03-18-2011, 06:03

I do not understand how posts # 2, 9, 10, and 11 are relevant to the topic of this discussion on the Libyan situation and a "No Fly Zone Approved by UN"...am I missing some point to those posts in here? :confused:

Richard

Richard

03-18-2011, 06:28

Too little, too late - if you want to accomplish something (not that I do), what is needed now is a 'No Armor Zone'!

Yep...while Rome burns...

Richard :munchin

Libyan Forces Attack Last Rebel-held Western City
AP, 18 Mar 2011

Moammar Gadhafi's forces are bombarding the last rebel-held western city as the international community discusses how to enforce a no-fly zone and protect the Libyan people.

A doctor says at least six people were killed Friday when tanks moved into Misrata and opened fire. He says a hospital and a mosque were shelled.

The doctor, who spoke on condition of anonymity because he feared reprisals, says the tanks then pulled back to the outskirts of the city.

Misrata, Libya's third-largest city, 125 miles (200 kilometers) southeast of Tripoli, has been sealed off by Gadhafi troops in a blockade that has cut off most water and food supplies for days.

Rebels fighting to oust the longtime Libyan leader are on the defensive in their eastern stronghold.

Moammar Gadhafi's regime defiantly closed Libya's airspace to all traffic while the West made plans to enforce a no-fly zone and prevent his forces from attacking rebels after the U.N. authorized "all necessary measures" to protect the Libyan people, including airstrikes.

The U.N. Security Council resolution was approved late Thursday with the backing of the United States, France and Britain, hours after Gadhafi vowed to launch a final assault and crush the nearly 5-week-old rebellion against him.

President Barack Obama telephoned the leaders of Britain and France after the vote, the White House said. U.S. officials speaking after a closed-door briefing in Congress said the attempt to ground Gadhafi's air force could begin by Sunday or Monday with the use of jet fighters, bombers and surveillance aircraft.

The British Cabinet held an emergency meeting as British planes were expected to take part in the international military action. NATO envoys in Brussels also were considering next steps.

Military experts cautioned that the consequences of such action are unpredictable. The former head of the British army, Richard Dannatt, said it was crucial to proceed cautiously "so we don't get into the kind of situation that we got into in Iraq by not having a Plan B for the morning after."

But the Western powers faced pressure to act urgently after weeks spent deliberation over what to do about Gadhafi as his regime gained momentum.

Gadhafi, calling in to Libyan television on Thursday, said his forces would "rescue" the people of Benghazi, the eastern Mediterranean port city that has become the de-facto rebel capital and staging ground. For those who resist, Gadhafi said, there would be "no mercy or compassion."

"This is your happy day, we will destroy your enemies," he said, warning the people of Benghazi not to stand alongside the opposition. "Prepare for this moment to get rid of the traitors. Tomorrow we will show the world, to see if the city is one of traitors or heroes."

Gadhafi also pledged to respond harshly to U.N.-sponsored attacks in an interview with Portuguese television broadcast just before the vote. "If the world is crazy," he said, "we will be crazy, too."

His ground forces were about 80 miles (130 kilometers) south of the city on Thursday evening, so it was unclear whether they would move on the city as quickly as he suggested.

A large crowd in Benghazi was watching the vote on an outdoor TV projection and burst into cheers, with green and red fireworks exploding overhead. In Tobruk, east of Benghazi, happy Libyans fired weapons in the air to celebrate the vote.

Europe's air traffic control agency, Eurocontrol, said Friday that "the latest information from Malta indicates that Tripoli (air control center) does not accept traffic."

The Brussels-based agency had no information on how long Libya's airspace would be closed but said it had halted all air traffic to Libya for 24 hours.

Libyan Deputy Foreign Minister Khaled Kaim struck a more conciliatory tone, offering to negotiate a cease-fire with the rebels. He welcomed the Security Council's concern for the people of Libya but called on the world not to allow them to receive weapons. "If any countries do that, they will be inviting Libyans to kill each other," he said.

In Tripoli on Friday, foreign journalists were barred from leaving their hotel.

The shift toward international action reflected dramatic change on the ground in Libya in the past week. The rebels, once confident, found themselves in danger of being crushed by an overpowering pro-Gadhafi force using rockets, artillery, tanks, warplanes. That force has advanced along the Mediterranean coast aiming to recapture the rebel-held eastern half of Libya.

Gadhafi troops encircled the city of Ajdabiya, the first in the path of their march, but also had some troops positioned beyond it toward Benghazi.

The unrest in Libya began Feb. 15 in the eastern city of Benghazi and spread east to Tripoli, the capital. Like others in the Mideast, the protest started with popular demonstrations against Gadhafi, rejecting his four decades of despotic and often brutal rule. The tone quickly changed after Gadhafi's security in Tripoli forcefully put down the gatherings there.

Soon rebel forces began arming themselves, quickly taking control of the country's east centered on Benghazi, the second largest Libyan city, with a population of about 700,000. Some Libyan army units joined the rebels, providing them with some firepower, but much less than Gadhafi's remaining forces, and crucially, no air power.

There are no official death tolls. Rebels say more than 1,000 people have been killed in a month of fighting, while Gadhafi claims the toll is only 150.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110318/ap_on_re_af/af_libya

LarryW

03-18-2011, 06:51

Too little, too late - if you want to accomplish something (not that I do), what is needed now is a 'No Armor Zone'!

Agree! Zero in on the Gadhafi brothers while you're at it. (Pigs in a blanket.)

echoes

03-18-2011, 07:07

Just saw this crossing the newsdesk at Fox... Hmmmmm? Wonder if this is for real, or if Kadafi is trying to buy some time???:munchin

http://www.foxnewsinsider.com/2011/03/18/libya-declares-ceasefire/

Libya Declares Ceasefire

Fox and Friends 7:55 am on March 18, 2011

EmailAlisyn Camerota just reported that Libya’s foreign minister has declared an immediate halt to military action on anti-government forces to ‘take the country back to safety and security for all Libyans’.

Stay tuned to Fox News Channel for the latest.

Romeo23

03-18-2011, 07:51

Just saw this crossing the newsdesk at Fox... Hmmmmm? Wonder if this is for real, or if Kadafi is trying to buy some time???:munchin

Sounds like Gaddafi is rethinking his strategy.

Perhaps the first of the UN backed jets are rolling overhead? :eek:

R

EX-Gold Falcon

03-18-2011, 14:34

scooter

03-18-2011, 15:01

From an article on Foxnews.com:

'Obama said Qaddafi must implement a cease-fire, stop his troops from advancing on rebel strongholds and allow humanitarian assistance to reach Libya. "Let me be clear, these terms are not negotiable," he said in a brief appearance at the White House. "If Qaddafi does not comply with the resolution, the international community will impose consequences and the resolution will be enforced through military action."

Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties on Libya before he made his statement. Sources with knowledge of the meeting said Obama told them that no U.S. troops and no U.S. attack aircraft will be directly involved in enforcement of the no-fly zone.'

I like the message. If you don't do what I say.... I'll beg someone else to do something. Doesn't really sound very intimidating. I wonder why he is weighing in at all if he plans to let others do the lifting.

tonyz

03-18-2011, 15:02

Agree! Zero in on the Gadhafi brothers while you're at it.

Yup, Moammar, Curleemmar and Larrymmar, et al.

neecheepure

03-18-2011, 15:13

Why in the world don't the A-Rabs do this themselves? It's their back yard. They bitch if we don't help, and they'll for sure bitch when we do.:confused:

kgoerz

03-18-2011, 15:42

This is a joke right. We had to ask for permission to help the Rebels. On top of that we give the enemy all the time in the world to prep for Air defense. I cant even wrap my head around how stupid this is.

Wolf Blitzer had a point. If this succeeds. Make the new Libyian Govt pay back the countries for the cost of the no fly zone.

The Reaper

03-18-2011, 17:02

In my opinion, I find it disgraceful that it took so long to finally reach this decision. However I am very pleased that at least it will go through. I can only hope that it is not to late to give the rebels a fighting chance and I truly hope there will be precise targeted strikes made against moma's armor, air and navel assets ASAP.

Along these same lines, I cannot help but wonder why US military assets are even necessary? Correct me if I am wrong, do not Spain, France and Italy all possess operational carriers? Between these three combined with British and German air and navel assets, it would seem perhaps geo-politically prudent for the US to assume a limited support role throughtout the operation. If I am offbase with this, please feel free to better explain the situation so I may learn.

Bloody Excellent News!

T.

IIRC, STOVL, jump jets and choppers only, not flat deck carriers, nothing particularly impressive. Decent ASW platforms.

You do not need to fly over, or be on the ground of a weak country to dominate their airspace. An Aegis destroyer or cruiser or two should be able to park offshore and kill anything that flies, as I understand it. A carrier would be nice for air to ground strikes, surveillance, and limited air interdiction.

TR

EX-Gold Falcon

03-18-2011, 17:21

IIRC, STOVL, jump jets and choppers only, not flat deck carriers, nothing particularly impressive. Decent ASW platforms.

You do not need to fly over, or be on the ground of a weak country to dominate their airspace. An Aegis destroyer or cruiser or two should be able to park offshore and kill anything that flies, as I understand it. A carrier would be nice for air to ground strikes, surveillance, and limited air interdiction.
TR
Thank you Sir.
I truly hope that EU Nato forces will be granted the necessary ROE's to make an actually difference as opposed to a toothless peacekeeper mission.

From an article on Foxnews.com:

Obama met with congressional leaders from both parties on Libya before he made his statement. Sources with knowledge of the meeting said Obama told them that no U.S. troops and no U.S. attack aircraft will be directly involved in enforcement of the no-fly zone.'
Missed this message, thanks for posting. Appears I wasn't too far offbase after all.

I like the message. If you don't do what I say.... I'll beg someone else to do something. Doesn't really sound very intimidating. I wonder why he is weighing in at all if he plans to let others do the lifting.
Well as the POTUS, he has to say something. If nothing more, EU Nato forces can utilize this as a "live fire" training exercise. :D

T.

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 02:11

greenberetTFS

03-19-2011, 06:11

Wolf Blitzer had a point. If this succeeds. Make the new Libyian Govt pay back the countries for the cost of the no fly zone.?/quote/kgoerz

He also said on the evening news that it's all over for Qaddofi only he doesn't realize it!...:rolleyes::eek::p

Big Teddy :munchin

Utah Bob

03-19-2011, 09:59

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2011/03/19/plane-shot-rebel-held-city-libya/#

Plane Shot Down Over Rebel-Held City on Libya

Published March 19, 2011
Associated Press
BENGHAZI, Libya -- A plane has been shot down over the main rebel-held city in eastern Libya.
An Associated Press reporter saw the plane go down in flames outside Benghazi early Saturday after the area came under shelling.
A black cloud went up over the city's southern outskirts....

FOX said it was a Ghadaffi plane.
CNN said it was a rebel plane.:rolleyes:

I saw the video.
I can confirm it was in fact, a plane. And it did, in fact, go down.
Does this now make me a reporter? ;)

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 11:35

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/Libyan-Forces-Take-Aim-on-Benghazi-as-World-Leaders-Convene--118293224.html

Allied Warplanes Patrol Libyan Skies

March 19, 2011
VOA News
French President Nicolas Sarkozy says allied warplanes are flying over Libya to enforce a no-fly zone and protect civilians in the city of Benghazi, where forces loyal to leader Moammar Gadhafi have been bearing down on rebels trying to bring down his government.

U.S. President Barack Obama confirmed a short time later that the United States has joined a coalition with its European and Arab partners to take action in Libya.

Obama spoke to reporters during his visit to Brazil. He said the allied coalition's "resolve is clear," and that all members are "prepared to act with urgency."

Sarkozy announced the military action Saturday in Paris, where representatives of the U.N., European Union, Arab and Western powers gathered for an emergency summit on the Libyan crisis.

President Sarkozy said the leaders agreed to use all necessary means - including military force - to carry out a U.N. Security Council resolution approved on Thursday. The Council declared a no-fly zone over Libya and specifically authorized world powers to use "all measures necessary" to protect civilians.

Sarkozy said world powers were intervening so the Libyan people can "choose their destiny," but he added there is still time for Gadhafi to heed the demands of the international community.

Earlier Saturday, pro-government forces in Libya advanced against rebels on two fronts. Insurgents in their eastern stronghold of Benghazi said government loyalists had been pushing forward in apparent disregard of the cease-fire Gadhafi declared on Friday. The rebels also say military units loyal to Gadhafi shot down one of their planes over the city....

Sigaba

03-19-2011, 11:54

FOX said it was a Ghadaffi plane.
CNN said it was a rebel plane.:rolleyes:

I saw the video.
I can confirm it was in fact, a plane. And it did, in fact, go down.
Does this now make me a reporter? ;)QP Utah Bob--

That's a negative. You are not a broadcast news journalist until you provide for this story all of the following.

Two hours of increasingly fantastic speculation accompanied by looped video of the event;
Follow up reporting that traces the myriad connections between this story and the local community.
Two teases for weather and for traffic.
A tease for a following news story that discusses either sex or kittens. (But not sex with kittens because that's simply gross.)
Numerous mentions of your blog and Facebook and Twitter accounts.
Some sort of internet-based viewer poll on any of the above. (But not sex with kittens because that's a subject fully covered over at 4chan--or so I've heard.)

HTH

Ambush Master

03-19-2011, 12:09

What is the base of the insurgency?? If they are AQ and are looking to impose a Strict Islamist Theocracy, could we be "Helping" the ENEMY?!?!

I believe that in Egypt, it was a Strong Islamic Base!!!

Just a thought!

Later
Martin

Utah Bob

03-19-2011, 13:36

It's my impression that the opposition in both Egypt and Libya is predominantly secular.

Geenie

03-19-2011, 13:37

Props to the French for stepping up.

Utah Bob

03-19-2011, 13:38

Big O is monitoring things closely ....:rolleyes:
from Brazil.

CDG

03-19-2011, 14:02

On CBS right now.... Bombing in Tripoli has begun.

Utah Bob

03-19-2011, 14:36

Cruise missiles have been fired but no US aircraft are in the air according to the Pentagon briefing in progress right now.

Geenie

03-19-2011, 14:49

Big O is monitoring things closely ....:rolleyes:
from Brazil.

Would he be closer to Lybia if he were in the US?

CDG

03-19-2011, 14:56

Apparently the missile strikes are phase one of a "multi-phase operation" that reportedly will not involve boots on ground. So we're going to just blast their air defenses while broadcasting the fact that we don't plan to actually follow up with any presence IN the country? What's the point then? I realize we are spread very thin and moving troops in may not be the best move, for now. But why put that out there?

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 15:02

Oh, it’s a humanitarian mission…

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-paris-clinton-idUSTRE72I30A20110319
(Reuters) - Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said in Paris on Saturday that the United States would bring its "unique capabilities" to bear to help its European and Canadian allies in enforcing a U.N. resolution on Libya.

Clinton, speaking as French warplanes began operations to stop Muammar Gaddafi's attacks, said the United States would support the intervention in Libya. Asked if the aim was to overthrow Gaddafi, she did not answer the question directly but said the aim of Western powers was to protect civilians.

"If the international community is to have credibility ... then action must take place," Clinton told a news conference.

She added that Washington had yet to decide whether to follow France in formally recognizing the rebel government in Benghazi.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/us-libya-usa-idUSTRE72A6EC20110319?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
....The United States is already enmeshed in long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and there is little appetite in Congress and among the public for another expensive military intervention. U.S. officials have said repeatedly that it is time for Gaddafi to leave, but lately have stressed that the goal of military action in Libya was different.

"It is to protect civilians and it is to provide access for humanitarian assistance," Clinton said in Paris, where she attended a conference called by French President Sarkozy to discuss the international response to the Libya crisis.

"Further delays will only put more civilians at risk," Clinton said at a news conference....

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 15:24

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/19/libya-targets-rebels-idUSLDE72I0M320110319

Libyan rebels coordinating with coalition-Jazeera

Sat Mar 19, 2011 4:44pm EDT
CAIRO, March 19 (Reuters) - Al Jazeera television reported on Saturday that Libya's rebel military council was coordinating with the international coalition that had launched air-strikes against areas where Muammar Gaddafi's forces were present.

It also said Western forces had bombarded a military college near the west Libyan city of Misrata where it said Gaddafi's forces were based....

kgoerz

03-19-2011, 15:32

I'm sure the Air Force is operating with their hands tied behind their back. Reminds me of Clinton's use of our Military.

Dusty

03-19-2011, 15:37

http://abcnews.go.com/International/libya-international-military-coalition-launch-assault-gadhafi-forces/story?id=13174246

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 15:41

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8391632/Libya-the-West-and-al-Qaeda-on-the-same-side.html

Libya: the West and al-Qaeda on the same side

Statements of support for Libya's revolution by al-Qaeda and leading Islamists have led to fears that military action by the West might be playing into the hands of its ideological enemies.
By Richard Spencer, Tripoli 6:48PM GMT 18 Mar 2011
WikiLeaks cables, independent analysts and reporters have all identified supporters of Islamist causes among the opposition to Col Gaddafi's regime, particularly in the towns of Benghazi and Dernah.

An al-Qaeda leader of Libyan origin, Abu Yahya al-Libi, released a statement backing the insurrection a week ago, while Yusuf Qaradawi, the Qatar-based, Muslim Brotherhood-linked theologian issued a fatwa authorising Col Gaddafi's military entourage to assassinate him.

But they also agree that the leading roles in the revolution are played by a similar cross-section of society as that in Egypt next door – liberals, nationalists, those with personal experience of regime brutality and Islamists who subscribe to democratic principles.

The WikiLeaks cables, initially revealed by The Daily Telegraph and dating from 2008, identified Dernah in particular as a breeding ground for fighters in a number of causes, including Afghanistan and Iraq.

"The unemployed, disfranchised young men of eastern Libya have nothing to lose and are therefore willing to sacrifice themselves for something greater than themselves by engaging in extremism in the name of religion," the cables quoted a Dernah businessman as saying.

Col Gaddafi has pinpointed the rebels in Dernah as being led by an al-Qaeda cell that has declared the town an Islamic emirate. The regime also casts blame on hundreds of members of the Libyan Islamist Fighting Group released since the group renounced violence two years ago.

Although said by the regime to be affiliated to al-Qaeda, most LIFG members have focused only on promoting sharia law in Libya, rejecting a worldwide "jihad".

The man running Dernah's defences, Abdelkarim al-Hasadi, was arrested by US forces in Afghanistan in 2002, but says he does not support a Taliban-like state.

The rebels' political leadership there says it is secular.

The same goes for the wider leadership, whose membership claims to espouse largely liberal ideals.

In any future negotiations – should it come to dialogue or even victory – rebel spokesmen are likely to be politicians who were until recently senior figures in the regime itself.

The head of the opposition National Council, Mustafa Abdul Jalil was Col Gaddafi's justice minister until he defected at the start of the uprising.

That may not be as bad as it sounds – he was a law professor appointed to improve Libya's human rights record by Saif al-Islam Gaddafi when the colonel's son was leading Libya's westernisation drive, and had already clashed with longer-standing regime insiders.

The military chief, though, is Abdul Fattah Younis al-Obeidi, a former leader of Col Gaddafi's special forces who was his public security, or interior, minister until he went over to the rebels.

He has described Col Gaddafi as "not completely sane", and worked with the SAS during the now curtailed thaw in British-Libyan relations. But it is still ironic that the West is taking sides in a battle between the leader of a much hated regime and his former effective deputy.

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 16:22

I feel better now: cooler minds are speaking up:
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/L/LT_LIBYA_LATIN_AMERICAN_ALLIES?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2011-03-19-16-00-32

Hugo Chavez condemns military strikes in Libya

By IAN JAMES
Associated Press
CARACAS, Venezuela (AP) -- President Hugo Chavez condemned military strikes against Libya on Saturday and accused the United States and its allies in Europe of attacking the North African nation to seize its oil....
The socialist leader has been joined by allies including Cuba's Fidel Castro and Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega in strongly opposing U.S. and NATO military involvement in Libya, and in suggesting that reports of atrocities by Gadhafi's troops are overblown or unproven.
Chavez criticized President Barack Obama, saying he won the Nobel Peace Prize but is pursuing another war in the same mold as Iraq and Afghanistan....

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: :::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OY-_JsNrxiM&feature=player_embedded

FARRAKHAN: "I warn my brother do you let these wicked demons move you in a direction that will absolutely ruin your future with your people in Africa and throughout the Arab world....Why don't you organize a group of respected Americans and ask for a meeting with Qaddafi, you can't order him to step down and get out, who the hell do you think you are?"

:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::: ::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

http://thehill.com/blogs/twitter-room/other-news/150857-michael-moore-rips-obama-over-libya-

Michael Moore rips Obama over Libya

By Jordan Fabian - 03/19/11 06:41 PM ET
Anti-war filmmaker Michael Moore tore into President Obama for taking military action in Libya on Saturday.

Moore, a frequent critic of President Bush for launching the Iraq War, unleashed a string on tweets comparing the U.S. military's mission in Libya to Iraq and Afghanistan, using a mantra coined by Charlie Sheen....

Moore also suggested that Obama should return the Nobel Peace Prize he won in 2009....

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 16:49

Would he be closer to Lybia if he were in the US?

Oh no, it’s fine. The National Command Authority should always take a break and do a little travel out of the hemisphere whenever US military forces commence new hostilities. Those darn reporters’ questions can be so annoying and really make it hard to concentrate. And that darn White House Situation Room gets really stuffy with all those people in it.

http://blogs.forbes.com/kenrapoza/2011/03/18/rubber-bullets-fly-at-anti-obama-protest-in-rio-o-globo-reports/

Rubber Bullets Fly at Anti-Obama Protest In Rio

Mar. 18 2011 - 9:19 pm
A molotov cocktail was launched in front of the US consulate in Rio de Janeiro late Friday in protest of the arrival of President Barack Obama, the O Globo newspaper in Rio reported. Military police reacted by firing rubber bullets into the gathering of 200 at around 18:30 local time. A CBN news reporter suffered a minor injury from the shots and traffic was blocked.
“They came after us with clubs and tear gas and attacked,” according to protestor Thiago Hastenheiter. “They chased us through the streets and started firing rounds of rubber bullets.”

Police major Fabio Alessandro of the 13th Batallion of Rio’s military police said that the protestors, all left leaning social movements associated with the Socialist Workers Party, PSTU, did not have a permit to protest near the consulate along Avenida Rio Branco and had refused to disperse from the area....

What is most ironic about the Brazil protests is that the PSTU is a hard core socialist party in Brazil. While anti-Obama protests in the US consider Obama a socialist, the socialists in Brazil consider him a yankee capitalist, the bane of the Latin American left....

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 17:00

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/5/20110319/twl-rebel-jet-shot-down-by-libyan-troops-3fd0ae9.html

Rebel Jet 'Shot Down' By Libyan Troops

AFP said rebel forces confirmed that a former Libyan air force jet crashed as it sought to attack loyalist troops on the outskirts of the rebel-held city in eastern Libya....

Utah Bob

03-19-2011, 17:22

Would he be closer to Lybia if he were in the US?

He would be able to get face time with the JCS and at least appear to be...

A. Seriously engaged in planning and..
B. In charge.

But what was I thinking?:rolleyes:

echoes

03-19-2011, 17:56

Again, was wondering about the acuracy of the reporting...hope that propoganda is not a factor, and that the truth is being told here...?:munchin

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_us_libya

First wave of allied assault: 112 cruise missiles

By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – 23 mins ago

WASHINGTON – U.S. and British ships and submarines launched the first phase of a missile assault on Libyan air defenses, firing 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles Saturday at more than 20 coastal targets to clear the way for air patrols to ground Libya's air force.

In announcing the mission during a visit to Brazil, President Barack Obama said he was reluctant to resort to force but was convinced it was necessary to save the lives of civilians. He reiterated that he would not send American ground troops to Libya.

"We cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people there will be no mercy," he said in Brasilia.

It was clear the U.S. intended to limit its role in the Libya intervention, focusing first on disabling or otherwise silencing Libyan air defenses, and then leaving it to European and perhaps Arab countries to enforce a no-fly zone over the North African nation.

Navy Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, director of the Pentagon's Joint Staff, told reporters the cruise missile assault was the "leading edge" of a coalition campaign dubbed Operation Odyssey Dawn. Its aim: prevent Moammar Gadhafi's forces from inflicting more violence on civilians -- particularly in and around the rebel stronghold of Benghazi -- and degrading the Libyan military's ability to contest a no-fly zone.

"This is not an outcome the U.S. or any of our partners sought," Obama said from Brazil, where he is starting a five-day visit to Latin America. "Our consensus was strong, and our resolve is clear. The people of Libya must be protected, and in the absence of an immediate end to the violence against civilians our coalition is prepared to act, and to act with urgency."

A chief target of Saturday's cruise missile attack was Libya's SA-5 surface-to-air missiles, which are considered a moderate threat to some allied aircraft.

Libya's overall air defenses are based on older Soviet technology but Gortney called them capable and a potential threat to allied aircraft.

Also targeted: early warning radars and unspecified communications facilities, Gortney said. The U.S. military has extensive recent experience in such combat missions; U.S. Air Force and Navy aircraft repeatedly attacked Iraq's air defenses during the 1990s while enforcing a no-fly zone over Iraq's Kurdish north.

Cruise missiles are the weapon of first choice in such campaigns; they do not put pilots at risk, and they use navigational technologies that provide good precision.

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 18:07

Props to the French for stepping up.

Eight years too late.

mojaveman

03-19-2011, 19:02

112 cruise missiles recently fired at air defense positions in Libya? Sounds like we're getting pretty serious.

Always wanted to see one of those things in action.

PRB

03-19-2011, 19:27

Our Commander in Chief is an idiot and this action is simply the wrong thing at the wrong time.....stupid

Geenie

03-19-2011, 19:28

Eight years too late.

I prefer to think of the glass as half full, but I guess YMMV.

kgoerz

03-19-2011, 19:56

This is nothing but a safe move to make Obama seem willing to take action. It's embarrassing.

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 21:15

This is nothing but a safe move to make Obama seem willing to take action. It's embarrassing.

There are zero US national security interests involved here. According to both the President and the Secretary of State, this is being done to save Libyan rebels. We are applying national assets and have orchestrated a small war on their behalf.
Will we be calling Madeline Albright in for this?
How is it in the interests of Jordan to become involved in this? If Jordan participates, how will it NOT piss off the Jordanian protestors/rebels who threaten the monarchy, jeopardizing the Jordanian government further?

incarcerated

03-19-2011, 22:00

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,751982,00.html

Obama Finally Has His Own War

By Marc Pitzke in New York
03/19/2011
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....

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....

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....

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.

Penn

03-19-2011, 22:00

“Let me underscore the key point that this is a broad international effort,” Clinton told reporters after the meeting. “The world will not sit idly by while more innocent civilians are killed. The United States will support our allies and partners as they move to enforce Resolution 1973,” which the U.N. Security Council approved Thursday.

It’s not that Gaddafi doesn’t need removal, but let’s be clear, Rwanda, Bosnia, Darfur, the Sudan, and a host of other countries only lack that one vital natural resource to assemble a broad international effort. The hypocrisy is laughable; maybe the international community could sell indulgence to buy the absolution and negate its culpability for the millions slaughter over the last 40 years.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/clinton-says-us-supports-but-will-not-lead-operation-against-libya/2011/03/19/AB9nkFw_story.html

alright4u

03-20-2011, 02:47

Zero is no hands on CIC. The US cannot be taking seriously with decisions that take this long. No action at this stage would have been my preference. How does anyone know these rebels are bent on democracy or are not AQ? His idea of being Pres seems to be to always delegate and then go screw off somewhere. There are things a Pres cannot delegate, nor can he sit around playing golf for three weeks before suddenly deciding a course of action on. But, we can rest assured no planned vacation will ever be cancelled.

Richard

03-20-2011, 08:56

I was listening to ADM Mullen and others about this situation this morning and gathered the following:

The US is the 'lead' in this effort with CINC-AFRICOM (GEN Hamm) in charge and a USN VADM of a carrier TF being the operational tactical commander.

US forces (and there were more than cruise missles used) were the 'tip of the spear' tossed at Libya because we were the force with the capability to expeditiously nullify the Libyan ADA capabilities and allow the 'No Fly Zone' to be established.

The other coalition forces will now be the primary enforcers of the established 'No Fly Zone' and we will step back to take a primarily 'supporting role' in that operation although CINC-AFRICOM will retain overall command authority.

Our strategy has been one of active involvement while - politically - appearing to remain somewhat aloof and seeking involvement only within an agreed upon coaliton environment of allied UN and SWA support.

Whether or not this was the 'right' thing to do is yet TBD as nobody has any idea of what Ghadaffi may or may not do as he is even considered a 'wild card' outsider within the Arab world...and...nobody is sure of just who is behind/involved in this Hatfield/McCoy situation of an Arab affair.

As a side note, if anyone thinks the POTUS is ever really on vacation no matter what he may be doing or where he may be travelling, they do not understand the position and how it works.

Richard :munchin

Penn

03-20-2011, 09:27

As a side note, if anyone thinks the POTUS is ever really on vacation no matter what he may be doing or where he may be travelling, they do not understand the position and how it works.

Yes, and regardless of your view, respective to Party affiliation, the foreign policy of the United States has remained consistent. This is easily prove upon review of the collective Presidential Inaugural address's.

Read Presidents Obama's acceptance speech in Chicago, the long line of commitment will echo back to Wilson. On the world stage America's position has always been De Oppresso Liber.

Pete

03-20-2011, 09:29

......As a side note, if anyone thinks the POTUS is ever really on vacation no matter what he may be doing or where he may be travelling, they do not understand the position and how it works.

Richard :munchin

Yes, we do Richard. As to why I made my comment about Rio. The Lib Press loved to bash Bush every time he went to his ranch - so many vactions while there is work to be done. Play Golf while troops are being killed in "his war", etc, etc blah, blah, blah.

But now that we have a D Prez who loves to play golf and patry around the world the lib Press is silent on the issue - after all, he works so hard .

incarcerated

03-20-2011, 17:10

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703292304576212742401472186.htm

Libya Uprising Raises Crucial Questions on Rebels

MIDDLE EAST NEWS
MARCH 20, 2011, 4:42 P.M. ET
By YAROSLAV TROFIMOV And CHARLES LEVINSON
BENGHAZI, Libya—The Libyan revolution that began as a spontaneous uprising a month ago is posing crucial questions for the U.S. and allies: Who, if anyone, is in charge, and what does the disparate rebel coalition want to achieve beyond ousting Col. Moammar Gadhafi.

The nature of the Libyan revolution has become an especially critical issue now that the U.S., European nations and Canada have unleashed a wide-scale air and missile campaign against Col. Gadhafi's regime, throwing the West's firepower behind the rebels' faltering forces.

On Sunday, the rebels' capital, Benghazi, remained in their hands, thanks to airstrikes that hit an advancing armored regime column.

U.S. and Western officials disagree with Col. Gadhafi's portrayal of the Libyan rebels as al Qaeda affiliates working at the behest of Osama bin Laden. But their support for the rebel cause is tempered by concerns over what role the country's deep-rooted Islamist militant networks will end up playing should Col. Gadhafi be ousted.

For now, the Libyan Islamists work shoulder to shoulder with defectors from the regime, secular intellectuals, tribal chiefs and youth campaigners, all of them united by hatred of Col. Gadhafi—and by fear of merciless reprisals should he succeed in reconquering eastern Libya.

Prominent revolutionaries at the rebel headquarters in the Benghazi courthouse include a veteran of the Afghan jihad against the Soviet Union, an unveiled female professor who sports black leather jackets, and a Libyan-American who likes to discuss French wines.

"Everything is still fresh. What we want is democracy, and once we have parties, everyone could express themselves," says Salwa Bugaigis, a lawyer who has become a spokeswoman for the rebels. As for the Islamist component of the uprising, she adds: "As you can see, I'm unveiled, I'm modern, and they respect me. If they were al Qaeda, they wouldn't even look at me."

The Libyan revolution's slogan is "freedom," not an Islamic state, and for its banner it adopted the red-black-and-green flag of the pro-American Libyan kingdom Col. Gadhafi overthrew in 1969. The bearded face of Omar Mukhtar, the hero of Libya's 1930s struggle against Italian colonialism, and his slogan, "We shall win or we shall die," beams from thousands of Benghazi car stickers and storefronts.

Islamist and secular alike, Libyan rebels express their gratitude for the Western airstrikes, drawing a sharp distinction between the air campaign against Col. Gadhafi and the American entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts in which a handful of today's Libyan revolutionaries fought American troops.

"When America occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, it spread corruption and killed innocents," said Rafat Bakar, a thick-bearded revolutionary activist in the city of Baida. "A Western intervention in Libya would help us get rid of the tyrant and of injustice."

The roots of the uprising lie in the 1996 massacre of some 1,200 mostly Islamist prisoners by Col. Gadhafi's regime in Benghazi: The revolution began with the Feb. 15 detention of Fathi Terbil, a young human-rights lawyer who represented the killed prisoners' relatives.

"I want a civil government, separation for powers, a free media, and a modern state of institutions," Mr. Terbil, a member of the rebels' new provisional government, said at a recent news conference.

The rebel government's head is Col. Gadhafi's former justice minister, Mustafa Abdel Jalil—although he is rarely seen in public, in part because of the bounty offered on him by the regime.

While the revolutionary cause as such enjoys widespread across eastern Libya, it isn't clear how much authority the inexperienced rebel leadership exercises—especially since Col. Gadhafi cut off most cellphone connections in the rebel areas last week, making it almost impossible for rebel officials and ordinary citizens to communicate with each other.

"Wherever you go, it's just volunteers, and there is no management—all the managers were with Gadhafi and have now fled," said Khalifa Hassan, a fourth-year medical student who stepped in to treat the victims of Col. Gadhafi's assault in the city of Ajdabiya. "There is no coordination."

The grass-roots nature of the uprising was evident this weekend, as residents clogged the roads leading out of Benghazi, offering shelter and food to refugees fleeing Saturday's shelling and tank assault on the rebel capital.

Men at intersections thrust bottles of water and juice into passing cars; one even handed out wads of cash to every Benghazi family passing by.

Yet, it is this kind of spontaneous activism that prompted the ragtag revolutionary fighters to overextend their lines with an unprepared push into the oil town of Ras Lanuf two weeks ago, prompting Col. Gadhafi's devastating counteroffensive that ended up bringing regime troops back into Benghazi this weekend.

"The youths are enthusiastic and they do not accept any fixed military plans," complained the rebels' military chief of staff, Gen. Abdel Fattah Younis, until recently Col. Gadhafi's minister of interior. "They rushed ahead, and there are consequences for that."

The cross section of young fighters who answered that call to battle could be seen at the front lines.

Mohammed al-Duraif, a self-proclaimed follower of the fundamentalist Salafi brand of Islam, unloaded boxes of ammunition from a pickup truck. "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great," he proclaimed with each new box.

He handed them off to Ali Yussuf, who sported Ray-Ban aviator sunglasses and slim-fit Levis. Mr. Yussuf's inspirations in life, he said: reggae lege nd Bob Marley and the professional wrestler Randy Orton.

Penn

03-20-2011, 17:32

You want Press bias:

On Sunday, the rebels' capital, Benghazi...

what a joke, has the insurrection consolidated itself that it now has a capital and a hierarchical leadership structure?

XJWoody

03-20-2011, 17:41

Mohammed al-Duraif, a self-proclaimed follower of the fundamentalist Salafi brand of Islam, unloaded boxes of ammunition from a pickup truck. "Allahu Akbar," or "God is great," he proclaimed with each new box.

He handed them off to Ali Yussuf, who sported Ray-Ban aviator sunglasses and slim-fit Levis. Mr. Yussuf's inspirations in life, he said: reggae legend Bob Marley and the professional wrestler Randy Orton.

:rolleyes: Emo Gs? Ah well, we go to war with the Army we have, not the one we'd like... I hope the cat can shoot straight, and gets his pound of flesh... :D

Airbornelawyer

03-21-2011, 00:52

what a joke, has the insurrection consolidated itself that it now has a capital and a hierarchical leadership structure?
I would say yes. The Transitional National Council was formed in Benghazi on February 27, and has de facto recognition from several countries and international bodies, including the Arab League, France and the UK. In the case of France at least, the recognition is also official.

As with almost everything else, the Obama Administration has been content to let others take the lead, so I can't tell what US policy is on the TNC. We are meeting with their representatives, though.

Obviously in a fluid civil war situation it is difficult to tell how much effective control a self-proclaimed leadership group has over the various rebel forces, even those forces that at least notionally claim obedience to the TNC. They do all seem to be consistently using the same flag, that of the pre-Qaddhafi Libyan kingdom. And at least they are actually in the country, as opposed the Afghan Interim Government I used to deal with in the late 80s/early 90s, which sat in Peshawar, Pakistan and was at best loosely respected and tolerated by the various mujahideen groups within Afghanistan.

The Libyan Permanent Mission to the United Nations, which broke with Qaddhafi, now has a statement by the Transitional National Council on its web site: http://www.libyanmission-un.org/tnc.pdf

Libya has long been effectively two countries - Tripoli-centered Tripolitania and Benghazi-centered Cyrenaica, so it doesn't surprise me that a power center coalesced quickly in Cyrenaica. I suppose if the situation in Libya drags out, a stalemate could develop with the country effectively split in two into a Qaddhafi-controlled West Libya and a TNC-controlled East Libya.

incarcerated

03-21-2011, 01:20

By way of Free Republic:
Candidate Obama on Executive Use of Military Force, December 20, 2007
http://www.boston.com/news/politics/2008/specials/CandidateQA/ObamaQA/

Barack Obama's Q&A

By Charlie Savage
Globe Staff / December 20, 2007

....Question: 2. In what circumstances, if any, would the president have constitutional authority to bomb Iran without seeking a use-of-force authorization from Congress? (Specifically, what about the strategic bombing of suspected nuclear sites -- a situation that does not involve stopping an IMMINENT threat?)

Answer: The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.

As Commander-in-Chief, the President does have a duty to protect and defend the United States. In instances of self-defense, the President would be within his constitutional authority to act before advising Congress or seeking its consent. History has shown us time and again, however, that military action is most successful when it is authorized and supported by the Legislative branch. It is always preferable to have the informed consent of Congress prior to any military action.

As for the specific question about bombing suspected nuclear sites, I recently introduced S.J. Res. 23, which states in part that “any offensive military action taken by the United States against Iran must be explicitly authorized by Congress.” The recent NIE tells us that Iran in 2003 halted its effort to design a nuclear weapon. While this does not mean that Iran is no longer a threat to the United States or its allies, it does give us time to conduct aggressive and principled personal diplomacy aimed at preventing Iran from developing nuclear weapons....

incarcerated

03-21-2011, 06:05

Exellant point. I don't remember congress voting on this action.

Hey, no problem! We talked it over with the Arab League and the UN. Who needs Congress?

kgoerz

03-21-2011, 16:10

scooter

03-21-2011, 17:10

Hey, no problem! We talked it over with the Arab League and the UN. Who needs Congress?

By the Presidential War Powers Act of 1973, the president must inform congress of any military action within 48 hours. Unless congress authorizes the action or declares war within 60 days, the president has 30 days to withdraw all troops from the conflict.

If you look at our history, the vast majority of US Military action has been limited actions that were not "Declared" Wars. This includes the Barbary Pirate wars, actions all over the Carribean (to include several invasions), the Boxer rebellion, phillipene insurrection, Indian wars, and others. Quite a few Medals of Honor came from these little brushfire wars, all of which were waged under executive authority and without declarations of war. Nothing new under the sun.

Pete

03-21-2011, 17:37

I find it interesting that we may get the blame on the Arab street no matter what happens.

Col Q stays in power - our fault we didn't get him out.

Col Q meets the 72 goats due to a miss-placed rocket - a few weeks later - our fault we killed an Arab Leader.

The Arab Leaders are bouncing all over the place right now - easy to settle the street by blaming us again for all their problems.

Airbornelawyer

03-21-2011, 22:58

How come there is no news about these so called Rebels. Shouldn't they be making advances. Taking back towns. Or were they told to do nothing for several days. So much the Media never picks up on.
Only thing being talked about over and over. Is the reporters who went to his compound voluntarily.
If a country is being bombed by the U.S. Last place I'm going is the leaders house. Human shields my ass.

Latest information I have seen on rebel activities and the situation on the ground in places Western reporters don't bother to go:

Jalu, Libya:
Jalu (or Jalo) is an oasis town in the Western Desert, about 225 miles SSE of Benghazi. A Libyan rebel report states that "Currently there there are 120 tanks from Gaddafi troops surrounding Jalo, a small town 400 km south of Benghazi threatening the people there and preparing to invade the city. Gaddafi troops have been indiscriminately bombing civilian buildings in every city they entered with mass civilian casualties. We expect the same outcome in Jalo if that was to happen." Jalu is located in the middle of the main Western Desert oilfields, and hosted a large number of expat oil workers who have been mostly evacuated. The local army commander had broken with the Qaddhafi regime several weeks ago.

Benghazi:
Same Libyan revel source: "In Benghazi, the situation is calmer today than the last two days. The revolutionaries are searching the city for Gaddafi’s sleeper cells that based themselves at schools (schools have been out since the beginning of the uprising) where they hid weapons (including RBGs [sic]) and money. Gaddafi’s sleeper cells in the city have been attempting to create chaos and shoot at citizens. Local telephone communication in Benghazi is controlled by Gaddafi’s apparatus in Tripoli and remains very sporadic and un-reliable."

Misurata/Misrata:
Misratah, 116 miles ESE of Tripoli, is the third largest city in Libya, and currently appears to be the furthest western extent of the rebels after last week's advances by pro-Qaddhafi forces before coalition operations began. It is also isolated, since Qaddhafi's forces control several areas east of it, including Sirte, Qaddhafi's hometown. Same Libyan revel source: "Gaddafi’s troops shelled the city all day till 6:00 pm local time; Gaddafi troops positioned snipers on high building and occupied the main square to raise Gaddafi’s flag and his people to take pictures. Local towns people came down to the street in peaceful protests and Gaddafi’s snipers killed 50 of the protesters (the revolutionaries). There were more than 100 injured in Misrata today. Misrata electricity station was bombed today by Gaddafi troops and now 80% of Misrata is without electricity. Also, Misrata radio station that is controlled by the revolutionaries has announced that the cities drinking water has been contaminated by sewage by Gaddafi’s troops. Currently, the revolutionaries have succeeded in pushing back Gaddafi’s troops to the outskirts of Misrata where they are now surrounding the city and the revolutionaries are controlling the city proper. The current situation is very critical and more civilian lives are being lost with every incursion by Gaddafi’s troops."

Meanwhile, al-Arabiya television relayed claims by Qaddhafi forces that they controlled Misrata.

Libya to the east of Benghazi, from at least al-Marj to the Egyptian border, appears to be under rebel control.

The rebels apparently have tried to advance and retake Adjabiya, a key crossroads south of Benghazi, but lack of coordination between their relatively ragtag forces and coalition airpower seems to be hampering operations. This story has some color to this: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8396300/Libya-rebels-push-on-to-the-disputed-town-of-Ajdabiya.html

It does seem that one problem is that most of the enforcers of the no-fly zone, especially the US, want to be seen as not taking sides, so they are refusing to coordinate with the rebels to get the best bang for the buck. Sort of a reverse of Afghanistan in 2001. Hopefully I'm wrong though, and that's just the official story to preserve international support for the coalition. At the very least, the French, who have recognized the Transitional National Council, are engaging in interdiction missions and not just SEAD, so hopefully they are trying to coordinate with the rebels.

Also, in coalition news, the French announced that the aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which recently returned from an OEF deployment supporting Afghan operations, should be on station by Tuesday and ready to conduct operations.

Canadian CF-18s, Belgian F-16s and Danish F-16s conducted their first operations over Libya on Monday, and Qatari Mirage 2000s are supposed to have arrived in Greece by now. The UAE, which was earlier reported to be contemplating a military role, now says it will only deliver humanitarian aid.

incarcerated

03-22-2011, 01:31

http://af.reuters.com/article/libyaNews/idAFSAG00276720110321

U.S.: Iran will take advantage of Mideast unrest

Mon Mar 21, 2011 9:55pm GMT
SANTIAGO, March 21 (Reuters) - The United States expects Iran to take advantage of unrest in the Middle East, deputy national security adviser Ben Rhodes said on Monday....

Rhodes said Iran had shown an "extraordinary level of hypocrisy" by expressing support for reform movements in the Arab world while engaging in a "brutal crackdown" on its own protesters....

Longstreet

03-22-2011, 04:49

Godspeed to the pilot and a safe return.

jaYson

U.S. warplane crashes in Libya, pilot safe: Report
The Toronto Star
Tuesday March 22, 2011

A U.S. warplane has crashed in a Libyan field after an apparent mechanical failure and its pilot has been rescued by rebels, Britain's Daily Telegraph newspaper reported on its website on Tuesday.

The plane is an F-15E Eagle, the Telegraph added in a report from a correspondent on the ground in Libya.

“Just found a crashed U.S. warplane in a field. believe a mechanical failure brought it down,” Telegraph correspondent Rob Crilly said on Twitter.

“Came down late last night. Crew believed safe,” Crilly added in subsequent tweets.

Western forces carried out a third night of air raids overnight aimed at protecting civilians from forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/article/957818--u-s-warplane-crashes-in-libya-pilot-safe-report?bn=1

Richard

03-22-2011, 05:06

Morning news is saying:

A/C had mechanical problems, not shot down near Benghazi
1 crewman rescued - SAR underway for the 2nd crewman - UPDATE: both pilots now rescued according to Pentagon
Attached picture of new US foreign aid supplied $31.1 million playground equipment for Libyans to use in their leisure time.

S**t happens - especially when you're going as low and as fast at night as those guys fly.

Richard :munchin

Scimitar

03-22-2011, 11:19

Word is Egyptian and European SOF are in country.

Wonder if any of our boys are in town? I doubt it, wouldn't that just be seen as another act of American Imprialism by the ME population?

Scimitar

Stratfor has a good article...

Stratfor (http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/20110321-libya-west-narrative-democracy?utm_source=GWeekly&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=110322&utm_content=readmore&elq=e59842a8f9624f3282d7a720f2ac00b6)

Hand

03-22-2011, 11:58

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703292304576212742401472186.htm

snip ...

U.S. and Western officials disagree with Col. Gadhafi's portrayal of the Libyan rebels as al Qaeda affiliates working at the behest of Osama bin Laden. But their support for the rebel cause is tempered by concerns over what role the country's deep-rooted Islamist militant networks will end up playing should Col. Gadhafi be ousted.

snip ...

I can understand Gadhafi throwing the rebels as far under the bus as possible, and given current events, this would be a logical response towards that end. But.... I keep reading 'Islamist militant', which harkens my mind to the ranks of other militant extremist (AQ/terrorist). Are they not one and the same?
By ending or helping the rebels to end Gadhafi's inhumane reign, are we simply setting the stage for yet another country full of terrorist training camps?

Islamist and secular alike, Libyan rebels express their gratitude for the Western airstrikes, drawing a sharp distinction between the air campaign against Col. Gadhafi and the American entanglements in Iraq and Afghanistan, conflicts in which a handful of today's Libyan revolutionaries fought American troops.

"When America occupied Afghanistan and Iraq, it spread corruption and killed innocents," said Rafat Bakar, a thick-bearded revolutionary activist in the city of Baida. "A Western intervention in Libya would help us get rid of the tyrant and of injustice."

snip ...

This is encouraging. But I do not get the seemingly duplicitous nature of the two paragraphs. How did we spread corruption in Afghanistan and Iraq?

tonyz

03-23-2011, 13:35

Amidst talk of French political steering committees - some interesting perspectives here - all the makings of a cluster you know what - Hillary is still asking Gadhafi to leave and suggesting that we really, really mean it this time.

Spiegel online
03/22/2011

The World from Berlin
'Gadhafi Is Facing a Coalition of the Unwilling'

NATO is split over whether it should take over command of the coalition military operation against Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi. German commentators warn that the alliance could be playing into the despot's hands with its dithering.

Excerpts:

"The easy part, strange as it may sound, was the implementation of the no-fly zone. What comes next is in danger of getting lost amid the conflicting interests of the participating countries and the limits of the UN mandate."

"What is the purpose of the operation now? To reduce Gadhafi's power and protect the rebels from his forces? This has already been done successfully. To restore Libya's lost unity? That would require regime change and a ground operation that everyone is rightly wary of, and which is not included in the UN mandate."

"The political squabbles threaten to jeopardize the operation and undermine its legitimacy. At the end of the day, the squabbling will benefit the Libyan regime -- and the international community will achieve the opposite of what it actually wanted."

http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752521,00.html

dadof18x'er

03-26-2011, 07:08

this should really get interesting.........http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-links.html

Romeo23

03-26-2011, 07:32

this should really get interesting.........

Maybe we'll see a call for all Muslim's to enter the newly acquired Motherland. :munchin

R

incarcerated

03-27-2011, 13:30

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143161

Clinton Calls Assad 'Reformer' as Video Shows Massacre

by Gil Ronen
Published: 03/27/11, 6:43 PM
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said Sunday that the U.S. would not intervene militarily in Syria as it is doing in Libya, and drew a distinction between Libya's Muammar Qaddafi and Syria's Bashar Assad. The latter, she explained, is seen by congressmen from both parties as “a reformer.”

“What’s been happening there the last few weeks is deeply concerning," she told CBS's Face the Nation regarding Syria, "but there’s a difference between calling out aircraft and indiscriminately strafing and bombing your own cities," as Qaddafi has done, and the violence by the Assad regime, which merely amounted to "police actions which, frankly, have exceeded the use of force that any of us would want to see.”

Clinton said that the circumstances that preceded the intervention in Libya -- international condemnation, and resolutions by the Arab League and United Nations Security Council -- are “not going to happen” regarding Damascus.

Even as Clinton explained the fine differences between Qaddafi and Assad, videos from Al-Sanamayan, near Daraa, appeared to document a massacre of civilians as it occurred....

Dusty

03-27-2011, 14:02

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/143161

Clinton Calls Assad 'Reformer' as Video Shows Massacre

Even as Clinton explained the fine differences between Qaddafi and Assad, videos from Al-Sanamayan, near Daraa, appeared to document a massacre of civilians as it occurred....

Un-fuckingbelievable.

incarcerated

03-27-2011, 23:43

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech

Barack Obama's Iraq Speech

Wednesday, October 2, 2002
<snip>
I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war. What I am opposed to is a rash war. What I am opposed to is the cynical attempt by Richard Perle and Paul Wolfowitz and other arm-chair, weekend warriors in this Administration to shove their own ideological agendas down our throats, irrespective of the costs in lives lost and in hardships borne.

What I am opposed to is the attempt by political hacks like Karl Rove to distract us from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income — to distract us from corporate scandals and a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression.

That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.

Now let me be clear — I suffer no illusions about Saddam Hussein. He is a brutal man. A ruthless man. A man who butchers his own people to secure his own power. He has repeatedly defied UN resolutions, thwarted UN inspection teams, developed chemical and biological weapons, and coveted nuclear capacity.

He’s a bad guy. The world, and the Iraqi people, would be better off without him.

But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history....

Pete

03-28-2011, 02:54

.......I don’t oppose all wars. And I know that in this crowd today, there is no shortage of patriots, or of patriotism. What I am opposed to is a dumb war.....

That old one and the one he'll give any day now will show he's grown since he took office. Now he approves of dumb wars.

And can he ever pick a final four! Oh, wait a minute.............

Dozer523

03-28-2011, 06:22

[url]That’s what I’m opposed to. A dumb war. A rash war. A war based not on reason but on passion, not on principle but on politics.... We tried that one before, how'd that work out for us?

incarcerated

03-28-2011, 10:05

It gets better: the President articulated our foreign policy position towards the current Middle East uprisings in the latter part of the same October 2002 speech (I guess his bowing to King Abdullah was, uh, disingenuous…):
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama%27s_Iraq_Speech

<snip>

….You want a fight, President Bush? Let’s fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells…..

incarcerated

04-02-2011, 00:28

This is going to put Samantha Power in a bind. Maybe the Spanish air force is available…
http://news.smh.com.au/breaking-news-world/as-rival-presidents-battle-800-massacred-in-icoast-town-20110402-1csa6.html

As rival presidents battle, 800 massacred in I.Coast town

Christophe Parayre
April 2, 2011 - 4:59PM
<snip>
"At least 800 people were killed in Duekoue on Tuesday," an ICRC spokeswoman in Geneva, Dorothea Krimitsas, told AFP, adding that information on the death toll had been gathered by Red Cross representatives who visited the area on Thursday and Friday.
"There is no doubt that something on a large scale took place in this city, on which the ICRC is continuing to gather information," she said, adding that Red Cross representatives had "themselves seen a very large number of bodies"....

Richard

04-02-2011, 06:08

Now which way to the Emerald City?

And so it goes...

Richard :munchin

greenberetTFS

04-02-2011, 06:14

Un-fuckingbelievable.

I totally agree with Dusty,but is that a f**king word?.........:D

Big Teddy :munchin

incarcerated

04-02-2011, 23:02

http://calopinion.com/2011/columns/debra-j-saunders-libya-no-blood-for-oil-is-the-chant-not-heard/

LIBYA: 'No blood for oil' is the chant not heard

Debra J. Saunders
Saturday, April 2, 2011
"No blood for oil" was a popular slogan chanted by the left in opposition to President George W. Bush's push to send U.S. forces into Iraq. Now that President Obama has authorized Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, I have been waiting to hear chants of "no blood for oil." I am happy to report, I don't hear them.

I went to the No Blood For Oil website; its lead item opposes efforts to strike wolves from the endangered species list. In fact, as NATO forces are lobbing missiles to enforce a no-fly zone over the country with Africa's largest oil and gas reserves, the nobloodforoil.org domain name is for sale.

With a Democrat in the White House, the anti-war corner has a much more civil tone. Anti-war House members have asked the GOP leadership to schedule an up-or-down congressional floor vote on the use of military force in Libya. A perfectly reasonable proposal. Congress should take its constitutional responsibilities seriously.

Now the Obama administration is in the hot seat - crushed between critics who charge the White House was too slow to authorize a no-fly zone and those who claim it was too rash in authorizing cruise missile strikes before notifying Congress. Hawks fear that Obama's promise not to put "boots on the ground" will embolden strongman Moammar Khadafy to fight to retain power. Doves believe that Obama went back on his no-boots-on-the-ground promise by authorizing a CIA presence in Libya.

Now, there are some smart questions to be asking the Obama administration. Who are the Libyan rebels? Are al Qaeda operatives or other extremists in their ranks? Can they win? Without answers, it is impossible to support any call to provide them with arms. NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen opposes such a move; Obama said he wouldn't rule it in or out.

What happens if NATO wants to bomb rebel forces to protect civilians?

But the Obama administration isn't going to answer every question. What's the endgame? Obama says that Khadafy must go and that the military mission is not Khadafy's ouster.

What's the exit strategy? Answer: the endgame.

As Obamaland has discovered once again, it's a lot easier to be asking questions than it is to answer them. On the same day that White House press secretary Jay Carney assured reporters that the U.S. military role would be of limited duration, Defense Secretary Robert Gates told Congress "no one can predict how long it will take" before NATO's Operation Unified Protector will shut down.

Some Republicans have used Libya to score easy points against Obama - Newt Gingrich was for the no-fly zone before he was against it.

Florida's new GOP Sen. Marco Rubio, however, has shown an adult conservative way to push for the necessary outcome - regime change - without tying Obama's hands. Last week, Rubio proposed a resolution to back the allied mission in Libya, to state that removing Khadafy from power is in the national interest and to authorize that Obama act accordingly.

So there is reason to hope that the debate on Libya can focus on questions of principle, and Obama won't have to contend with the sort of cheap shots hurled against Bush as he won congressional authorization for the war in 2002. Why, one little-known state lawmaker charged that the Iraq war was an "attempt by political hacks" to distract the public "from a rise in the uninsured, a rise in the poverty rate, a drop in the median income," corporate scandals and "a stock market that has just gone through the worst month since the Great Depression." His name, as you've no doubt surmised, is Barack Obama.

Now that Bush is out
You won't hear many anti-war Democrats trying to discredit Libya operations by hitting Obama for:

-- Risking U.S. blood for oil.

-- Authorizing strikes to distract voters from economic woes.

-- Waging war even though he never served in the military.

-- And by the way, Veep Joe Biden had five draft deferrals.

-- How dare the president pick basketball winners during a time of war?

-- Ditto the family trip to South America.

-- Also the fundraisers.

JJ_BPK

04-03-2011, 03:20

this should really get interesting.........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8407047/Libyan-rebel-commander-admits-his-fighters-have-al-Qaeda-
links.html

Mr al-Hasidi admitted he had earlier fought against "the foreign invasion" in Afghanistan, before being "captured in 2002 in Peshwar, in Pakistan".

He was later handed over to the US, and then held in Libya before being released in 2008.

Interesting indeed...

:munchin

incarcerated

04-06-2011, 01:56

http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-04-06/nato-blamed-as-libyan-rebels-flee-assault-by-qaddafi-forces.html

NATO Blamed as Libyan Rebels Flee Assault By Qaddafi Forces

April 06, 2011, 2:47 AM EDT
By Patrick Donahue and Alaric Nightingale
April 6 (Bloomberg) -- Libyan rebels retreated under heavy fire from the central oil port of Brega, prompting their top commander to lash out at NATO for not doing enough to stop artillery attacks by Muammar Qaddafi’s forces.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is slow “in responding to our instructions” on targets and is failing to “give us what we need,” Abdel Fattah Younes, head of the rebel army and Qaddafi’s former interior minister, said at a press conference in Benghazi broadcast on al-Jazeera. He was particularly critical of the alliance for failing to stop Qaddafi’s weeks-long siege of Misrata, the rebel-held city near Tripoli that has been the scene of the most protracted attacks....

incarcerated

04-09-2011, 15:36

http://www.military.com/news/article/nato-we-didnt-know-libya-rebels-had-tanks.html?ESRC=topstories.RSS

NATO: We Didn’t Know Libya Rebels Had Tanks

April 08, 2011
Associated Press
BRUSSELS - NATO acknowledged Friday that its airstrikes had hit rebels using tanks to fight government forces in eastern Libya, saying no one told them the rebels used tanks....

incarcerated

04-30-2011, 19:38

The No Fly Zone just killed Gadhafi‘s son, Seif al-Arab.
What do you suppose Gadhafi will do?
http://www.voanews.com/english/news/africa/NATO-Strike-Kills-Son-of-Libyan-Leader-121032964.html

Libya: Gadhafi Survives NATO Airstirke

April 30, 2011
VOA News
Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi has survived an apparent NATO airstrike that killed one of his sons and three grandchildren.

Government spokesman Moussa Ibrahim announced the deaths in a Saturday news conference. He said 29-year-old Saif al-Arab Gadhafi and the grandchildren were killed during what he called a direct attempt to assassinate the Libyan leader. Ibrahim described the younger Gadhafi as a student.

Ibrahim says Mr. Gadhafi and his wife were in their son's home at the time but were not injured. However, he said several other people at the home were hurt.

Also, reporters were taken to the site of the home, where they saw extensive damage.
There was no immediate reaction from NATO. However, as word of the apparent strike spread across Libya, celebratory gunfire was heard in the rebel stronghold, Benghazi.

Earlier Saturday, NATO rejected an offer from Mr. Gadhafi for negotiations to end the conflict in his country....

Pete

05-01-2011, 04:14

This "operation" has been going on for around six weeks now.

Once again UN/NATO "Leadership" is shown for what it is. Keystone Cops anyone?

incarcerated

05-01-2011, 10:45

http://www.voanews.com/english/news/europe/British-PM-Says-NATO-Targeting-Libyan-Decision-Makers-121048549.html

British and Italian Embassies in Libya Attacked

VOA News
May 01, 2011
The Italian and British embassies in the Libyan capital, Tripoli, have been attacked in apparent retaliation for a NATO missile strike that reportedly killed leader Moammar Gadhafi's youngest son and three young grandchildren.

British Foreign Secretary William Hague Sunday condemned the embassy attacks and said his government is expelling the Libyan ambassador to Britain. He said attacks on diplomatic missions breach the Vienna Convention.

Italy confirmed its embassy was among several in Tripoli damaged by vandals and accused Mr. Gadhafi's government of failing to take measures to protect foreign missions....

incarcerated

06-26-2011, 11:00

http://www.smh.com.au/world/gaddafi-is-a-target-despite-assurances-admits-us-admiral-20110626-1glvm.html

Gaddafi is a target despite assurances, admits US admiral

Molly Peterson
June 27, 2011
WASHINGTON: The US admiral in charge of the Allied Joint Force command in Naples has told a Republican congressman that NATO forces are trying to kill the Libyan leader, Muammar Gaddafi.
Admiral Samuel Locklear III told the House of Representatives Armed Services Committee member Mike Turner last month that coalition forces are actively targeting Colonel Gaddafi, despite the assurances of the US President, Barack Obama, that regime change is not the goal of the United Nations-mandated military mission.
The report of Admiral Locklear's comments appeared in the journal Foreign Policy, citing Mr Turner.
The Ohio Republican congressman, who voted against authorising the Libyan operation in Congress on Friday, said the admiral also told him that ground troops may be needed in Libya after Colonel Gaddafi is ousted, the magazine reported.
According to the magazine, Mr Turner said: ''The UN authorisation had three components: blockade, no-fly zone, and civil protection. And Admiral Locklear explained that the scope of civil protection was being interpreted to permit the removal of the chain of command of Gaddafi's military, which includes Gaddafi.''
In the briefing he gave to Mr Turner, Admiral Locklear later maintained that the mission did not involve regime change, to which Mr Turner said: ''If you remove Gaddafi it will affect regime change.'' Foreign Policy reported Mr Turner as saying ''[Locklear] did not have an answer to that''.
A public affairs officer for Admiral Locklear's command in Naples said that the Foreign Policy ''story does not accurately reflect Admiral Locklear's views on either ground troops or the targeting of any individual, including Colonel Gaddafi. The admiral clearly understands and has repeatedly emphasised the stated objectives for the military mission.''
However, the journal reports that Admiral Locklear publicly stated on May 30 in Varna, Bulgaria, that a ''small force'' could be necessary following the fall of Gaddafi's regime.
On Friday, the House rejected a resolution on a 295-123 vote that would have authorised continued US support for NATO bombardment of Colonel Gaddafi's forces.
However, a bill to remove funding for the mission failed on a 238-180 vote.
''The President hasn't come to Congress and said any of this and yet Admiral Locklear is pursuing the targeting of Gaddafi's regime, Gaddafi himself and contemplating ground troops following Gaddafi's removal,'' Mr Turner told Foreign Policy. ''They're not being straightforward with Congress … It's outrageous.''
The House leader, John Boehner, has accused Mr Obama of exceeding his authority under the War Powers Act, which requires a vote of Congress to endorse hostilities past 90 days.
The White House replied that such a vote was not required as the US was playing only a supporting role in the Libyan conflict.
A statement from the White House last week said: ''US operations do not involve sustained fighting or active exchanges of fire with hostile forces, nor do they involve US ground troops.''
The overwhelming majority of NATO bombing missions in Libya have been conducted by French and British war planes.
A NATO official said ''without wishing to engage on the specifics'' of the Foreign Policy article, ''NATO's position has been clear since the beginning of the Libyan operation: we do not target individuals and we do not have troops on the ground''.
''NATO's mission is to use all necessary means to prevent attacks and the threat of attack against civilians and civilian-populated centres, as the UN mandated,'' the official said.
Bloomberg