Excerpt
Even as President Obama on Monday described a narrower role for the United States in a NATO-led operation in Libya, the American military has been carrying out an expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan Army to turn against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
When the mission was launched, it was largely seen as having a limited, humanitarian agenda: to keep Colonel Qaddafi from attacking his own people. But the White House, the Pentagon and their European allies have given it the most expansive possible interpretation, amounting to an all-out assault on Libya’s military.
A growing armada of coalition warplanes, armed with more precise information about the location and abilities of Libyan Army units than was known a week ago, have effectively provided the air cover the ragtag opposition has needed to stave off certain defeat in its de facto eastern capital, Benghazi.
Allied aircraft are not only dropping 500-pound bombs on Libyan troops, they are also using psychological operations to try to break their will to fight, broadcasting messages in Arabic and English, telling Libyan soldiers and sailors to abandon their posts and go back to their homes and families, and to defy Colonel Qaddafi’s orders.
The Obama administration has been reluctant to call the operation an actual war, and it has sought to emphasize the involvement of a dozen other countries, particularly Italy, Britain and France. In his speech on Monday night, Mr. Obama, as he has in the past, portrayed the mission as a limited one, and described the United States’ role as “supporting.”
But interviews in recent days offer a fuller picture of American involvement, and show that it is far deeper than discussed in public and more instrumental to the fight than was previously known.
From the air, the United States is supplying much more firepower than any other country. The allies have fired nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the campaign started on March 19, all but 7 from the United States. The United States has flown about 370 attack missions, and its allied partners have flown a similar number, but the Americans have dropped 455 precision-guided munitions compared with 147 from other coalition members.
Besides taking part in the airstrikes, the American military is taking the lead role in gathering intelligence, intercepting Libyan radio transmissions, for instance, and using the information to orchestrate attacks against the Libyan forces on the ground. And over the weekend the Air Force quietly sent three of its most fearsome weapons to the operation.
The strategy for White House officials nervous that the Libya operation could drag on for weeks or months, even under a NATO banner, is to hit Libyan forces hard enough to force them to oust Colonel Qaddafi, a result that Mr. Obama has openly encouraged.
“Certainly, the implied though not stated goal here is that the Libyan Army will decide they’re fighting for a losing cause,” said Gen. John P. Jumper, a retired Air Force chief of staff. “You’re probably dealing with a force that may not be totally motivated to continue this for the long haul.”
First, as I read this NYT article the tone seemed to be that what is happening is not a limited approach as stated. The NYT does have a right to its opinion.
Having said that, and viewed President Obama's speech tonight, I see current events as exactly what the President and the military leadership said we are doing. Hitting the Libyan military forces, jamming communications, and providing military intelligence (electronic) support just to name a few. To sum up my view, I consider any U.S. military action that does not involve troops on the ground as limited.
As for the leadership for this action in Libya, I applaud that we finally realize that the U.S. need not lead everything. It's about time we stopped behaving like we had all the answers, especially to others problems.
ALSO
PBS Newshour 3/29/2011
UPDATE
"Qaddafi offered refuge in Uganda" CBS News 3/30/2011
Libyan leader Muammar Qaddafi is welcome to live in the East African nation of Uganda, the president's spokesman told The Associated Press on Wednesday, in what appears to be the first country to offer him refuge.
An intense diplomatic effort is under way to find a country where Qaddafi can go, as an international military effort against Qaddafi's forces continues.
The spokesman for Uganda's president, Tamale Mirundi, told the AP that Qaddafi would be welcome in Uganda. He said Uganda's policy is to accept asylum seekers, especially because so many Ugandans fled the country during the longtime rule of dictator Idi Amin.
"So we have soft spots for asylum seekers. Qaddafi would be allowed to live here if he chooses to do so," Mirundi said.
Another possible reason Uganda might accept Qaddafi is that Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni is, like Qaddafi, among the old guard of African leaders. Museveni has been in power for 25 years, though he won re-election in February amid signs that many Ugandans still genuinely support him.
Qaddafi has been in power for more than 40 years.
Museveni had planned to travel to Libya in mid-March, but sent his foreign minister instead. Days later, Museveni issued a nine-page statement denouncing the U.S. and European military action for interfering in what he said was an internal matter. He also praised Qaddafi, though he urged the Libyan leader to negotiate with the rebels.
"Whatever his faults, is a true nationalist," Museveni said of Qaddafi. "I prefer nationalists to puppets of foreign interests."
One complicating factor to Qaddafi's living in Uganda may be the International Criminal Court, whose chief prosecutor has said he will decide by May whether to seek an indictment against Qaddafi. Uganda is a signatory to the statute that created the court.
Muslims in Uganda may welcome Qaddafi as well. Muslim leader Hamuza Kaduga noted that Qaddafi paid for a large modern mosque in Kampala and has supported other projects.
Uganda currently hosts more than 20,000 refugees from Kenya, Somalia, Sudan, Eritrea and Rwanda.
No comments:
Post a Comment