Libya

Monday

Peter Hoskin

Putin rages against the “crusading” West

A gold star for Vladimir Putin, for providing us with one of the most extraordinary interventions of the day. While we knew that the Russian Prime Minister is opposed to military action in Libya — and also that he is no natural friend of the West — it is still striking to hear him talk as he does in the video above. “It reminds me,” he says of the UN resolution at hand, “of the medieval call for a crusade.” Ever the pacifist, he then goes on to rail against the “steady trend in US policy” to get involved in conflicts abroad. Meanwhile, our government is doing its part to

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Targeting Gaddafi

The press is currently making great play of an apparent difference between General Richard and Liam Fox on whether or not Gaddafi can be targeted. The whole debate flags up one of the absurdities of international legal convention. If it is legitimate to hit a Libyan tank crew moving on Benghazi, why it is not legitimate to target the person who is ultimately giving these orders?     Given the whole nature of the Libyan state, the fastest — and, I would say, most humane — way to end this conflict would be to kill Gaddafi. Anne-Marie Slaughter, until recently the head of policy planning at the State Department, argued

Peter Hoskin

The Yemeni domino totters

Call it the domino effect, if you like. After Tunisia, Egypt, and Libya, Yemen is the latest country to drag its rulers to the precipice — and it could push them over, too. The latest news is that several Yemeni generals have joined the protesters in calling on President Saleh to stand down. One source tells al-Jazeera that 90 per cent of the army could do likewise by this evening. The broad consensus is that the current regime is wheezing to a close. So what next? From this vantage point, Yemen is certainly one of those countries where change should be greeted warily. It’s not so much the emerging prospect

Daniel Korski

Moussa’s mess

Just as the world thought the Arab League had entered adulthood its Secretary-General, Amr Moussa, threw a teenage tantrum, voicing concern that the coalition bombing of Libya went beyond a no-fly zone. He had wanted the protection of civilians, he said, not the bombardment of more civilians. But it is hard to see what Moussa had in mind. Did he want to micromanage operations from his desk, picking targets as Lyndon Johnson did during the Vietnam War? Or is the temptation to play to the Arab gallery too much? Could it be that Moussa’s presidential ambitions in Egypt are better served by not being too close to the West? Either

Peter Hoskin

Obama’s nervousness makes life difficult for him and his allies

Gingerly, gingerly — that’s how the Americans are approaching the presentational battle over Libya, if not the actual campaign itself. There is no bombast in the official broadcasts from Washington, nor categorical intent. Instead we have Robert Gates emphasising, as he did yesterday evening, that the US will soon handover “primary responsibility” for the mission to us or the French. Or there’s Mike Mullen, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, saying that “potentially one outcome” is for Gaddafi to stay in power (see video above). The idea of regime change, or of deeper US involvement, is being downplayed all round. What’s clear, perhaps even understandable, is that Obama

Sunday

James Forsyth

Allied strikes hit targets in Tripoli

Tonight’s news of major explosions in Tripoli shows that the allies are putting little store in the Gaddafi regime’s unsubstantiated claims of a ceasefire. Some of the targets appear, from reports, to have been in the same area of the city as Gaddafi’s barracks and residence. The US military, though, says the allies are not targeting the dictator specifically. Judging from comments made by the US Defence Secretary Robert Gates, the Americans are looking to hand over control of the operation to the French and/or British in the next few days. Pentagon fears over US military overstretch, which are part of the reason that Obama has sounded such an uncertain

David Blackburn

Gaddafi calls for a ceasefire, again

Sky News has footage of officials of the Gaddafi regime (if that’s not too grand a phrase) saying that the Colonel has called his armed forces to a ceasefire. This announcement has come after a day of intense air attacks on targets across Libya, including in Tripoli, where anti-aircraft guns have been called into action. It also follows the Arab League’s sudden crisis of confidence, which Gaddafi may have seen as a chance route to safety.  Statements from the MoD and Foreign Office suggest that the allies have not been perturbed by Amr Moussa’s reservations. The bombing is expected to continue. But perhaps this ceasefire, if it is honoured, will make the US,

Alex Massie Alex Massie

War Aims Matter, So What are We Trying to Achieve in Libya?

I know it’s tedious to bang on and on about this but it does seem quite important that we have some idea of what we’re actually trying to achieve in Libya. Until we have a goal it seems most unlikely that we can have a coherent strategy. At present no-one seems to know what the goal is and the Americans are busy contradicting one another. For instance, here’s Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff insisting, again, that the operation is strictly limited: “The goals are limited. It’s not about seeing him go.” And here’s National Journal’s Marc Ambinder, quoting an administration official who says “We have

David Blackburn

The Arab League puts a spanner in the works

According to Sky’s Tim Marshall, the Arab League is to meet in emergency session to discuss events in Libya. It seems that some of its members are opposed to the action being taken by the French, which it believes exceeds the remit of the UN Resolution for a no-fly zone. The bombing of tanks in particular has raised the ire of its General Secretary Amr Moussa. The Arab League’s assent was crucial to obtaining the Resolution, so Moussa’s reservations are significant – although quite what he thought he was agreeing to in the first place is anyone’s guess. Moussa is a probable candidate in the forthcoming Egyptian presidential election, so

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Sarkozy’s game

I’m hearing more reports about the rather peculiar behaviour of Nicholas Sarkozy, and how he is playing the Libya campaign thus far. Obama wants to hand over leadership of this mission quick. He was never really into it, but the US Navy was overwhelmingly the best placed to do the first phase of the mission (ie, fire Tomahawks into 20 Libyan targets). The Tomahawk team constituted 11 US ships and submarines, plus one British submarine. Anything other than American leadership would have been a joke. Phase Two is to take out Gaddafi’s surface-to-air missiles as soon as he dares to move them. Obama wants to hand over the baton to

David Blackburn

The allies converge on Gaddafi

George Osborne appeared on the Andrew Marr show this morning to introduce the Pledge of his Budget magic trick. But Marr and his viewers wanted talk about the show of military strength over Libya. Osborne reiterated that the government is committed to enforcing the UN Resolution and had no plans to deploy ground troops at this stage. He refused to rule out the use of British ground forces in the future. Privately, officials are trying to dispel the perception that the UN Resolution forbids the use of Special Forces commandos to assist the bombing campaign. The Resolution does not permit an occupation, but it would be very surprising if covert

Fraser Nelson Fraser Nelson

Cameron’s achievement

Just last month, David Cameron declared that you “can’t drop democracy from 40,000 feet.” He’s right. It’s more like 400 feet: this is the cruising altitude of the 112 Tomahawk missiles fired from British and American submarines earlier this evening, low enough to dodge Gaddafi’s radars and take out some 20 targets. Given that Obama and Cameron have both ruled out ground forces this will be, as Kosovo was, a bombing-only campaign. And launched on the eighth anniversary of the Iraq war. The US Navy, which was always itching to proceed with the no-fly zone, is now leading the operation; hence its briefing, on CNN, above. There is one British

Saturday

Daniel Korski

Come on, NATO, get a move on

NATO’s top decision-making body is meeting in emergency session to review military plans for a no-fly zone over Libya. The alliance is expected to issue the order to launch the operation. But the action now is taking place not inside NATO, but in a coalition-of-the-willing led by France and Britain. Germany and Turkey are said to be blocking swift action. For NATO Secretary-General Rasmussen, this should be disconcerting. Only a few months ago, NATO celebrated the agreement of a new strategic blueprint which said: ‘NATO has a unique and robust set of political and military capabilities to address the full spectrum of crises  – before, during and after conflicts.  NATO

James Forsyth James Forsyth

Allied military intervention in Libya has commenced

Reports are coming in that French jets have fired the first shots in the UN-supported intervention in Libya. The coming conflict will determine, in the short term, whether the Gaddafi regime is toppled and, in the longer term, whether the international community rediscovers its appetite for intervention which had been so diminished by the controversies over Iraq and the difficulties of the Afghan mission. That there is intervention at all in Libya is down in no small part to David Cameron and William Hague. Hague played a key role in ensuring that Arab countries were prepared to commit to putting planes in the air in this operation, something that was

David Blackburn

French planes take to the skies as Sarko talks tough

And so it starts. French News Channel BFM reports that French fighter jets are airborne over Libyan skies; al Jazeera corroborates the report, adding that these are reconnaissance missions. By the sounds of things, French military sources are briefing international agencies, adding to the sense that the domestically troubled President Sarkozy wants to capitalise on his sudden international prominence. Sarkozy has just been speaking outside the summit meeting in Paris, which he hosted as Chairman of the G20 and G8. His words were stern: “In Libya, a civilian population which is passive which requires nothing further than the right to choose itself its destiny finds itself in danger of life. We have a

Daniel Korski

The winners and losers

In English we have an odd expression: “to have a good war”. The phrase was originally used to describe someone who was decorated or otherwise distinguished themselves, usually during WW II. Allan Massie, for example, wrote that author William Golding “had a good war, first as an ordinary seaman, then as an officer in command of a Landing Craft Tank (Rocket) on D-Day”. Today, newspapers and blogs have been quick to use the phrase for politicians. So David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy are said to have had a “good war” over Libya, so far at least, with Barack Obama faring differently. Organisations also have good and bad wars – with

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Regime Change is the Issue in Libya. Why Doesn’t Obama Understand That?

Further to this item noting the differences between what David Cameron and Barack Obama are saying, a White House spokesman emails Ben Smith to say there’s no contradiction between the American insistence that this is not about regime change and Cameron’s suspicion that it’s hard to see how Gaddafi can remain in power: This is very easily explained. We still believe that Qaddafi has lost his legitimacy to lead and must go. However the goal of this resolution is not regime change. Rather it authorizes the use of force with an explicit commitment to pursue all necessary measures to stop the killing. Those two things aren’t contradictory. Fine, the resolution

Friday

James Forsyth

Allies’ statement on Libya demands more of Gaddafi than just a cease-fire

A statement has just been issued by the sponsors of last night’s Security Council resolution, it reads: “Resolution 1973 lays out very clear conditions that must be met. The UK, US, France and Arab States agree that a cease fire must be implemented immediately. That means all attacks against civilians must stop. Gaddafi must stop his troops from advancing on Benghazi, pull back his troops from Ajdabiyah, Misratah, and Zawiyah, and re-establish water, electricity and gas supplies to all areas. Humanitarian assistance must be allowed to reach the people of Libya. These terms are not negotiable. If Gaddafi does not comply with the Resolution, the international community will impose consequences,

David Blackburn

Does Sarko deserve more credit than Cameron?

Just as the British press is venerating David Cameron in the aftermath of last night’s UN resolution, so too the French press is praising President Sarkozy. In fact, the whole administration is basking in his reflected glory. Le Figaro describes Sarkozy’s and Prime Minister François Fillon’s roles in obtaining the UN Resolution and preparing the French military for action; the Defence minister also receives a hearty appraisal. Even the Presidency’s determined adversaries have expressed more than grudging respect. The left-wing newspaper Libération applauds Foreign Minister (and grand old man of Gaullism) Alain Juppé’s success in bringing the fractious United Nations to resolution. In recent days, the paper has also reported

Alex Massie Alex Massie

Cameron vs Obama. They can’t both be right about Regime Change.

This afternoon in Washington, Barack Obama was at pains to stress the limited nature of the planned action against Colonel Gaddafi. To wit: “We are not going to use force to go beyond a well-defined goal, specifically the protection of civilians in Libya,” On the other side of the Atlantic, answering questions in the House of Commons, David Cameron said: The aim is clear: to put in place what has been required by the UN Security Council, which is a cessation of hostilities. It is the protection of lives and the protection of people. It is the prevention of a bloodbath in Benghazi. It is to make sure that arms