By ROBERT BURNS and DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press
WASHINGTON – Despite squabbling among allies involved in the air assault in Libya, President Barack Obama said Tuesday he is confident the U.S. can hand over control of the operation to other nations in a matter of days.
The president, speaking in El Salvador, said the attack authorized by the United Nations late last week has already saved the lives of Libyans who would otherwise have been targeted by forces loyal to Moammar Gadhafi.
Responding to a question at a news conference on the final stop of a Latin American trip, the president also suggested the administration would not need to request funding from Congress for the air operations but would pay for them out of money already approved.
Obama spoke as administration officials briefed lawmakers in Washington about the military operation to date, and as the White House disclosed he would return home a few hours ahead of schedule on Wednesday.
Obama said he had spoken earlier with British Prime Minister David Cameron and French President Nicolas Sarkozy in hopes of quickly resolving a dispute over the transition of the military mission designed to create a no-fly zone over Libya to shield the civilian population.
"When this transition takes place it is not going to be our planes that are maintaining the no-fly zone. It is not going to be our ships that are necessarily enforcing the arms embargo. That's precisely what the other nations are going to do," Obama said.
With congressional critics growing vocal about the deployment of American military forces, the president defended the wisdom of the operation.
"It is in America's national interests to participate ... because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that's going through great changes," Obama said.
With longtime autocratic governments under pressure elsewhere in the Arab world, the president made clear his decision to dispatch U.S. planes and ships did not automatically signal he would do so everywhere.
"That doesn't mean we can solve every problem in the world," he said.
Sounds like Obama and Gates are willing to let other countries do their part as well and not go it alone or take the bulk of the action. Half the air sorties thus far were US. Interesting to see how this pans out. No American casualties, that I have heard of, as of yet, although one of our jets did crash but the pilots ejected. Would be nice to see Quack-daffy finally removed as he should have been years ago, but he could end up hiding in a "spider-hole" for a while himself.
[This message has been edited by tbone42 (edited 03-22-2011).]
IP: Logged
05:11 PM
Doug85GT Member
Posts: 9469 From: Sacramento CA USA Registered: May 2003
"It is in America's national interests to participate ... because no one has a bigger stake in making sure that there are basic rules of the road that are observed, that there is some semblance of order and justice, particularly in a volatile region that's going through great changes," Obama said.
I have read that twice and I still have no idea how air strikes against Libya are in "America's national interests".
If this is in America's national interest to get involved in this civil war, then when is it not in America's national interest to get involved in a civil war? Civil wars happen all over the world regularly.
IP: Logged
05:27 PM
rinselberg Member
Posts: 16118 From: Sunnyvale, CA (USA) Registered: Mar 2010
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I have read that twice and I still have no idea how air strikes against Libya are in "America's national interests".
If this is in America's national interest to get involved in this civil war, then when is it not in America's national interest to get involved in a civil war? Civil wars happen all over the world regularly.
I think that the Obama administration is calculating that they can "win" this one without putting large numbers of U.S. soldiers at risk on the ground.
You have two problems. One problem (Libya) is relatively straightforward to address. The other problem (Sudan, for example) looks to be a real b*tch. Do you NOT fix Libya, just because you CAN'T fix Sudan?
?
IP: Logged
05:41 PM
carnut122 Member
Posts: 9122 From: Waleska, GA, USA Registered: Jan 2004
Originally posted by Doug85GT: I have read that twice and I still have no idea how air strikes against Libya are in "America's national interests".
If this is in America's national interest to get involved in this civil war, then when is it not in America's national interest to get involved in a civil war? Civil wars happen all over the world regularly.
There's a bit more to it than "follow the oil", tho that does hold some water. Any nation, with which we (or our close allies) trade goods. buy, or sell, is of course in our long term interest. It matters little, if those goods are petroleum, foodstuff, rare earth metals, or anything else, and of course, we are (just like every other nation) more prone to get involved with trade 'partners' than with those whom we have have little or no ties. This one, was a bit tricky, as we have in recent years, had a fairly good relationship with Libyia, even tho we did not buy a lot of our crude from them--but our European friends did and do. This relationship, I believe, is the reason there was so much fence sitting early on. "Let Muhamar put the rebellion down and stay on his good side--or help the rebellion and be on the good side of the rebels once they win?" It was a sticky wicket, and finally came to loggerheads only when Kadaffi's air force was seen being used indiscriminately against innocent citizens. I suspect, a lot of behind-the-scenes dialog took place between the US/NATO and OPEC as well as with the North African states. My guess is, that Saudi gave everyone the green light, providing they (NATO/USA/EU) agreed to let things slide in Bahrain. Should things get really serious in Syria, it will be really interesting to see what the major world players do in regards to getting involved there. Syria has no oil (to speak of), and has always been accused of promoting terrorism and has certainly been involved for decades in any endeavor that could cause Israel any problems, but a populist uprising in Syria could lead down several roads, and I don't think any of them would be a fun drive--not to mention that Syrian military is well equipped and well trained--and the fact that Syria and Iran are closely aligned. Gonna be a long hot summer IMO.
No Fly Zones, tho not 100% without risks, are good, cheap, hands-on experience for young pilots and AWACS type crews. Patrolling a no-fly zone is no more expensive for our military than normal training missions, but are a lot more realistic in a variety of ways.
There's a bit more to it than "follow the oil", tho that does hold some water. Any nation, with which we (or our close allies) trade goods. buy, or sell, is of course in our long term interest. It matters little, if those goods are petroleum, foodstuff, rare earth metals, or anything else, and of course, we are (just like every other nation) more prone to get involved with trade 'partners' than with those whom we have have little or no ties. This one, was a bit tricky, as we have in recent years, had a fairly good relationship with Libyia, even tho we did not buy a lot of our crude from them--but our European friends did and do. This relationship, I believe, is the reason there was so much fence sitting early on. "Let Muhamar put the rebellion down and stay on his good side--or help the rebellion and be on the good side of the rebels once they win?" It was a sticky wicket, and finally came to loggerheads only when Kadaffi's air force was seen being used indiscriminately against innocent citizens. I suspect, a lot of behind-the-scenes dialog took place between the US/NATO and OPEC as well as with the North African states. My guess is, that Saudi gave everyone the green light, providing they (NATO/USA/EU) agreed to let things slide in Bahrain. Should things get really serious in Syria, it will be really interesting to see what the major world players do in regards to getting involved there. Syria has no oil (to speak of), and has always been accused of promoting terrorism and has certainly been involved for decades in any endeavor that could cause Israel any problems, but a populist uprising in Syria could lead down several roads, and I don't think any of them would be a fun drive--not to mention that Syrian military is well equipped and well trained--and the fact that Syria and Iran are closely aligned. Gonna be a long hot summer IMO.
No Fly Zones, tho not 100% without risks, are good, cheap, hands-on experience for young pilots and AWACS type crews. Patrolling a no-fly zone is no more expensive for our military than normal training missions, but are a lot more realistic in a variety of ways.
There are lots of unanswered questions in this UN authorized project.
1. A simple no-fly zone means Muhamar can still use his significant and fairly powerful ground forces at will. Will NATO openly engage Libyian ground forces in support of the uprising, thus making it an undisputed and open effort to oust Gadhafi? 2. What about Yemen, where that president has promised civil war if the opposition doesn't start engaging in negotiations? 3. How far will the UN go in Syria--those people have been under martial law and the thumb of secret police for many decades now. 4 protestors were killed just today (night time there) at a mosque.
One of the "problems" in the MidEast and North Africa, is the power vacum. There is no single Arab nation with enough clout, prestige, and respect to put things right. About 1/2 the stronger nations there have protests of their own, and thus can little afford to try to flex their muscles anywhere in the region. Iran is too extremist to be accepted by most, Jordan too aligned with the west, Egypt not yet reorganized from their own revolt, Iraq not yet up to speed diplomatically, etc etc. A sub continent in flux, with no real leadership or unity.
There are lots of unanswered questions in this UN authorized project.
1. A simple no-fly zone means Muhamar can still use his significant and fairly powerful ground forces at will. Will NATO openly engage Libyian ground forces in support of the uprising, thus making it an undisputed and open effort to oust Gadhafi? 2. What about Yemen, where that president has promised civil war if the opposition doesn't start engaging in negotiations? 3. How far will the UN go in Syria--those people have been under martial law and the thumb of secret police for many decades now. 4 protestors were killed just today (night time there) at a mosque.
One of the "problems" in the MidEast and North Africa, is the power vacum. There is no single Arab nation with enough clout, prestige, and respect to put things right. About 1/2 the stronger nations there have protests of their own, and thus can little afford to try to flex their muscles anywhere in the region. Iran is too extremist to be accepted by most, Jordan too aligned with the west, Egypt not yet reorganized from their own revolt, Iraq not yet up to speed diplomatically, etc etc. A sub continent in flux, with no real leadership or unity.
So far it seems the West have been supporting the opposition by taking out ground forces like tanks, missle launchers etc. so it seems they are at least trying to level the playing field so to speak.
Yemen and Bahrain are interesting as well, they both have had close ties to the U.S. even though in Yemen we've seen Al Queda has been operating there for years so I'm not sure how trustworthy the West thinks the leaders of such places are but sometimes it's the Devil you know and control kind of thing IMO. Seems that now they are being forced to decide what side they want to be on, freedom with an uncertain future or the old guard who think nothing of killing those people who want their freedom.
If all this continues and (that's a big and) Saudi Arabia and Iran follow it should make for some very interesting and tumultuous times. As much as I'm encouraged and think the Mid East/N Africa could become free and democratic there's easily the possibility that it goes the other way and the radicals that we all fear could gain power. There's a chance it will work out for the best and that this is the "paradigm shift" that has been needed there for some time but only a chance.
IP: Logged
11:32 PM
Mar 23rd, 2011
cliffw Member
Posts: 35893 From: Bandera, Texas, USA Registered: Jun 2003
What year did Ghaddafi get out of the boxing ring after trying to take on Mohammed Ali and George Frazier by himself ? Perhaps that's why he is fracked up in the head. It is hard to hate war when you are trying to take out a nut job. Does anyone remember his last UN speech ?
Originally posted by maryjane: Syria has no oil (to speak of), ....
I wonder. Have there been comfortable exploratory options in Syria ? Is there any drilling offshore on the southern Mediterranean sea ? Interesting that Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Libya all have oil. Perplexing that Egypt does not.
IP: Logged
08:34 AM
avengador1 Member
Posts: 35467 From: Orlando, Florida Registered: Oct 2001
With U.N. coalition forces bombarding Libyan leader Muammar el-Qaddafi from the sea and air, the United States’ part in the operation could ultimately hit several billion dollars -- and require the Pentagon to request emergency funding from Congress to pay for it.
The first day of Operation Odyssey Dawn had a price tag that was well over $100 million for the U.S. in missiles alone. And the U.S. military, which remains in the lead now in its third day, has pumped millions more into air- and sea-launched strikes targeting air-defense sites and ground-force positions along Libya’s coastline.
The ultimate total that the United States spends will hinge on the length and scope of the strikes as well as on the contributions of its coalition allies. But Todd Harrison, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments, said on Monday that the U.S. costs could “easily pass the $1 billion mark on this operation, regardless of how well things go.”
The Pentagon has the money in its budget to cover unexpected contingencies and can also use fourth-quarter dollars to cover the costs of operations now. “They’re very used to doing this operation where they borrow from Peter to pay Paul,” said Gordon Adams, who served as the Office of Management and Budget’s associate director for national security during the Clinton administration.
However, there comes a point when there simply isn’t enough cash to pay for everything. The White House said on Monday it was not prepared to request emergency funding yet, but former Pentagon comptroller Dov Zakheim estimated that the Defense Department would need to send a request for supplemental funding to Capitol Hill if the U.S. military’s share of Libya operations expenses tops $1 billion.
"The operation in Libya is being funded with existing resources at this point. We are not planning to request a supplemental at this time," said Kenneth Baer, a spokesman for the Office of Management and Budget.
Such a request would likely be met with mixed reactions in a Congress focused on deficit reduction. And while many key lawmakers have been agitating for action in Libya, others have been more reluctant and have urged the Obama administration to send them a declaration of war.
Senate Foreign Relations ranking member Richard Lugar, R-Ind., says Congress should have had the opportunity to weigh in on what he said will be “a very expensive operation, even in a limited way.”
Speaking on CBS’s Face the Nation on Sunday, Lugar said, “It’s a strange time in which almost all of our congressional days are spent talking about budget deficits, outrageous problems. And yet [at the] same time, all of this passes.”
So far, the operation appears to be focused on creating a limited no-fly zone mostly targeting the capital city of Tripoli, which is Qaddafi’s stronghold, and other areas along the coast. That will require a wide range of military assets.
In a report released earlier this month, Harrison estimated that the initial stages of taking out Qaddafi’s coastal air defenses could ultimately cost coalition forces between $400 million and $800 million. But the coalition is now targeting his ground forces in an effort to protect civilians—a factor that Harrison said will drive up the initial costs of the operation.
“At some point, though, we will have degraded his forces to the point that there are not that many targets left,” Harrison said. “So we’d expect to see the sortie rate start to drop off.”
Meanwhile, Harrison initially estimated that maintaining a coastal no-fly zone after those initial strikes would cost in the range of $30 million to $100 million per week. If the coalition continues to strike ground targets, the weekly costs would be closer to the higher range, he said.
These unanticipated costs come at a time when the Pentagon is putting pressure on Capitol Hill to pass its fiscal 2011 budget. Continuing to operate under a stopgap continuing resolution through September, senior Defense officials argue, would amount to a $23 billion cut to the military’s request for the current fiscal year, which began October 1. The Pentagon wants $708.3 billion for this year, including $159.3 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.
For the U.S. military, the highest costs of the operations over Libya come in the form of pricey munitions, fuel for aircraft, and combat pay for deployed troops -- all factors that will pile up each day U.S. forces remain at the helm of the operation.
On the first day of strikes alone, U.S.-led forces launched 112 long-range Tomahawk cruise missiles, which cost about $1 million to $1.5 million apiece, from ships stationed off the Libyan coast. That totaled $112 million to $168 million. Since those first strikes, U.S. and British forces have launched at least another 12 Tomahawk missiles.
The Defense Department typically buys about 200 Tomahawks a year. While the military likely can put off buying new missiles for months, it will ultimately need to boost planned procurement rates to refill its stockpile.
Defense budget watchers said the deployment of guided missile destroyers and submarines would not put a major dent in the Pentagon’s accounts because the ships were already deployed to the region. But the U.S. military has tapped its B-2 bombers as well as F-15 and F-16 fighter jets to strike a number of targets, undoubtedly forcing an immediate uptick in the military’s operations and maintenance expenditures, including fuel costs.
The military flew the three bombers deployed for the mission from Missouri’s Whiteman Air Force Base, a nearly 12,000-mile round trip that will incur significant fuel and maintenance costs, Harrison said.
Meanwhile, it generally costs $10,000 per hour, including maintenance and fuel, to operate F-15s and F-16s. Those costs do not include the payloads dropped from the aircraft. The B-2s dropped 45 Joint Direct Attack Munitions, or JDAMS, which are 2,000-pound bombs that cost between $30,000 and $40,000 apiece to replace.
On the personnel front, special pay for soldiers involved in the operation will kick in immediately -- unlike the munitions costs, which the Pentagon can defer.
Ultimately, the length and scale of the operation -- and of the U.S. role in it -- will be key to how much it costs. A weeklong operation involving a limited number of U.S. troops would be manageable within the existing defense budget. But if Odyssey Dawn drags on for weeks and months, the Pentagon would likely have to do some maneuvering to replenish its accounts.
For now, the United States continues to lead operations, although U.S. military leaders insist that control will soon be transferred to an as-yet unnamed coalition leader.
Army Gen. Carter Ham, the Odyssey Dawn operational commander, told reporters on Monday that allies are stepping up to shoulder much of the mission. There were 60 sorties flown on Sunday, about half by U.S. aircraft. But on Monday, coalition allies were expected to fly more than half of the day’s 70 to 80 sorties.
Complicating matters, however, is the fact that most of the coalition nations’ militaries, which operate on a fraction of the Pentagon’s yearly allowance, are grappling with budget pressures of their own. While the Defense Department hopes to transfer control to coalition partners in the coming days, the longer the operations over Libya continue, the more difficult it will be for allies to take the lead.
“If it goes on more than a month, we’re going to be in the forefront [of operations] or we’re going to let Qaddafi stick around,” predicted former Defense comptroller Zakheim, who served under President George W. Bush. “The choices aren’t very pleasant.”
The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments’ Harrison coauthored a report offering a historical analysis of the price for operations similar to the one in Libya that provides costs for several different scenarios. Those range from a sweeping and high-priced effort to impose and maintain a no-fly zone over the entire country to a much smaller no-fly zone with limited flyovers and few, if any, attacks on Libyan air-defense or ground-force targets. The current operation appears to fall somewhere between those two scenarios.
Zack Cooper, a senior analyst at the think tank who coauthored the study with Harrison, acknowledged that the operation’s costs are still too difficult to estimate because of lingering questions following the weekend strikes.
“Since we don’t yet know the length, magnitude, or degree of U.S. involvement, any cost projections are going to be very rough estimates at this point,” Cooper said.
IP: Logged
10:39 AM
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
Despite his best intentions Obama may walking into a situation where we are vilified in the middle east even more than before. If we are helping Libya, but stay out of Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria, it will look like it's all about oil. I mean even I would see it that way and I'm not that type of person.
IP: Logged
11:38 AM
Boondawg Member
Posts: 38235 From: Displaced Alaskan Registered: Jun 2003
Is Libya a fight for democracy or just tribal warfare?
THOMAS FRIEDMAN fears it may be the latter, as many countries now facing unrest in the Middle East might be more accurately termed ‘tribes with flags.’
DAVID Kirkpatrick, the Cairo bureau chief for The Times, wrote an article from Libya on Monday that posed the key question, not only about Libya but about all the new revolutions brewing in the Arab world: “The question has hovered over the Libyan uprising from the moment the first tank commander defected to join his cousins protesting in the streets of Benghazi: Is the battle for Libya the clash of a brutal dictator against a democratic opposition, or is it fundamentally a tribal civil war?”
This is the question because there are two kinds of states in the Middle East: “real countries” with long histories in their territory and strong national identities (Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Iran); and those that might be called “tribes with flags,” or more artificial states with boundaries drawn in sharp straight lines by pens of colonial powers that have trapped inside their borders myriad tribes and sects who not only never volunteered to live together but have never fully melded into a unified family of citizens. They are Libya, Iraq, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Bahrain, Yemen, Kuwait, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates.
The tribes and sects that make up these more artificial states have long been held together by the iron fist of colonial powers, kings or military dictators. They have no real “citizens” in the modern sense. Democratic rotations in power are impossible because each tribe lives by the motto “rule or die” — either my tribe or sect is in power or we’re dead.
‘My tribe ... your tribe’
It is no accident that the Mideast democracy rebellions began in three of the real countries, Iran, Egypt and Tunisia, where the populations are modern, with big homogenous majorities that put nation before sect or tribe and have enough mutual trust to come together like a family — “everyone against dad.” But as these revolutions have spread to the more tribal/sectarian societies, it becomes difficult to discern where the quest for democracy stops and the desire that “my tribe take over from your tribe” begins.
In Bahrain, a Sunni minority, 30 percent of the population, rules over a Shiite majority. There are many Bahraini Sunnis and Shiites — so-called sushis, fused by inter-marriage — who carry modern political identities and would accept a true democracy. But there are many other Bahrainis who see life there as a zero-sum sectarian war, including hard-liners in the ruling Al Khalifa family, who have no intention of risking the future of Bahraini Sunnis under majority-Shiite rule. That is why the guns came out there very early. It was rule or die.
Iraq teaches us what it takes to democratize a big tribalized Arab country once the iron-fisted leader is removed (in that case by us). It takes billions of dollars, 150,000 U.S. soldiers to referee, myriad casualties, a civil war where both sides have to test each other’s power and then a wrenching process, which we midwifed, of Iraqi sects and tribes writing their own constitution defining how to live together without an iron fist.
Enabling Iraqis to write their own social contract is the most important thing America did. It was, in fact, the most important liberal experiment in modern Arab history because it showed that even tribes with flags can, possibly, transition through sectarianism into a modern democracy.
But it is still just a hope. Iraqis still have not given us the definitive answer to their key question: Is Iraq the way Iraq is because Saddam was the way Saddam was or was Saddam the way Saddam was because Iraq is the way Iraq is: a tribalized society?
All the other Arab states now hosting rebellions — Yemen, Syria, Bahrain and Libya — are Iraq-like civil-wars-in-waiting. Some may get lucky and their army may play the role of the guiding hand to democracy, but don’t bet on it.
In other words, Libya is just the front-end of a series of moral and strategic dilemmas we are going to face as these Arab uprisings proceed through the tribes with flags. I want to cut President Barack Obama some slack. This is complicated, and I respect the president’s desire to prevent a mass killing in Libya.
Mind our own house
But I think we need to be more cautious. What made the Egyptian democracy movement so powerful was that they owned it. The Egyptian youth suffered hundreds of casualties in their fight for freedom. We should be doubly cautious of intervening in places that could fall apart in our hands, a la Iraq, especially when we do not know, a la Libya, who the opposition groups really are — democracy movements led by tribes or tribes exploiting the language of democracy Finally, sadly, we can’t afford it. We have got to get to work on our own country. If the president is ready to take some big, hard, urgent decisions, shouldn’t they be first about nation-building in America, not in Libya? Shouldn’t he first be forging a real energy policy that weakens all the Gadhafis and a budget policy that secures the American dream for another generation? Once those are in place, I will follow the president “from the halls of Montezuma to the shores of Tripoli.”
Friedman is a columnist for The New York Times and a three-time Pulitzer Prize winner.
Despite his our best intentions Obama the U.S. may walking into a situation where we are vilified in the middle east even more than before.
Isn't that more acurate?
No it's not more accurate--wars--and their outcomes/effects are always, since before the Spanish American War, attributed to whoever was/is in charge, and that person is the CiC. Jefferson's War with Tripoli, Lincoln will always be associated with the War of Yankee Aggression --Wilson with WW1, Teddy Roosevelt is famous (or infamous) for sending US trooops into the Carribean or S. America in no less than 8 different occassions in what is known as the Banana Wars, FDR with WW2, Truman with Korea, Carter with the failed Iran hostage rescue, LBJ with Vietnam (Johnson's War) , Reagan=Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Bush Sr with the 1st Gulf War, and GW Bush with Iraq/Afghanistan. CiC is ultimately responsible--period.
A more correct assesment: Despite his our best intentions Obama AND the U.S. may walking into a situation where we are vilified in the middle east even more than before.
[This message has been edited by maryjane (edited 03-24-2011).]
IP: Logged
08:39 AM
Scottzilla79 Member
Posts: 2573 From: Chicago, IL Registered: Oct 2009
--Wilson with WW1, Teddy Roosevelt is famous (or infamous) for sending US trooops into the Carribean or S. America in no less than 8 different occassions in what is known as the Banana Wars, FDR with WW2, Truman with Korea, Carter with the failed Iran hostage rescue, LBJ with Vietnam (Johnson's War) , Reagan=Lebanon, Grenada, Panama, Bush Sr with the 1st Gulf War, and GW Bush with Iraq/Afghanistan. CiC is ultimately responsible--period..jpg)
