Military

Ending Cameron’s War

The coalition is now in danger of coming unstuck — not because of failure, but because of its success. It needs to urgently decide how to run itself and what its aims are. Before it runs out of targets. Neither is easy to do. The US may want to handover control of the mission but there is not really anyone they can transfer authority to. NATO is being blocked from assuming control, the EU does not have the wherewithal — its naval mission off Somalia’s coast is already run out of Permanent Joint Headquarters in north London — and the UK and France would struggle to run the mission, either

James Forsyth

Removing Gaddafi is key

The question of whether Gaddafi should be targeted and what the exit strategy should be in Libya are intimately linked. In truth, there is no exit strategy that does not involve Gaddafi’s fall from power. As long as he is there, the threat to those that the international community is now pledged to protect will remain. Even a de facto partition of Libya with Gaddafi in charge of the west and the rebels the east would require — at least — an over the horizon presence to ensure that Gaddafi did not attempt to raid across the line or invade the east. At the moment, the British government appears to

War aims

A few days into the no-fly zone and the initial aim of the intervention has been achieved: Colonel Ghaddafi no longer controls his own airspace and cannot use airpower for close-air support, intimidation or murder. But success has bred a new problem – what now? Should the coalition turn itself into the airborne wing of the resistance, providing support to a rebel advance on Tripoli? Or should it just continue patrolling the skies above Libya as the rebels fight on? If so, how should the coalition react when the rebels face military set-backs? Should they stand back or prevent Libyan forces from taking advantage of their tactical victories and just

Cameron promises that Libya is ‘not another Iraq’

Discussion of military action brings a different atmosphere to the chamber of the House of Commons: quieter, less disputatious, more consensual. In opening the debate, the Prime Minister took a huge number of interventions including a large number from those MPs who are most sceptical of this intervention. All were heard respectfully and answered respectfully. Cameron’s desire to find consensus was part of his broader message that this is ‘not another Iraq.’ He stressed that the action in Libya was necessary, legal and right and that any kind of occupying force is ruled out. He argued that the intervention had been ‘in the nick of time’ to prevent a massacre

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

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

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

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

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,

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

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

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

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

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

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

The way to cease fire

Colonel Ghadaffi wants a cease fire. Fine, but Western governments should insist that the no-fly zone still comes into force; that a new UN resolution is drafted to specify cantoment areas for his forces; and that a UN-mandated Arab Leage but NATO-enabled interpositional force is deployed to ensure the ceasefire holds, perhaps with an Egyptian officer as the head working in tandem with the UN and EU envoys to kickstart a political process. Finally, the West should lend massive support to the “free republic” of Benghazi – economic, military and so on. That is the kind of ceasefire the West can accept. Not a ploy that aims to pick the

James Forsyth

Libya declares a ceasefire

What to make of Libya’s declaration of a ceasefire and acceptance of the UN resolution Seen most cynically, it could just be seen as the Gaddafi regime playing for time, using the extra hours to make it more difficult in both military and political terms for action to be taken. Or, it could indicate a division within the regime, with more pragmatic elements trying to temper Gaddafi’s threats and avoid anything that brings the situation to a head. 

James Forsyth

Cameron’s sombre statement

David Cameron was calm, measured and far from messianic as he delivered his statement to the House on the coming action against Libya. He was keen to stress that last night’s resolution ‘excludes an occupation force of any part of Libyan territory.’ However, he did, in answer to a question from James Arbuthnot, agree that regime change was likely to be necessary to achieve the aims of the resolution.   Cameron said there would be a statement later today from international leaders and it seems that this will be an ultimatum to Gaddafi. If military action does follow, Cameron said that he had ‘some guarantees’ from Arab leaders that they