Support NeoGAF

[RustyNails]

Libya is easy, as no one likes Gaddafi.

This man begs to differ

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

This man begs to differ

Let's not forget Daniel Ortega too.

 

[LQX]

Hillary was just on TV giving a speech like robot. You can tell she did not write or have any input on a single word of that speech.

And I fucking hate this we had to "act to protect civilians". Fuck you. Was Darfur all a lie? Surely it was as the international community did absolutely shit other than send news crews.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Hillary was just on TV giving a speech like robot. You can tell she did not write or have any input on a single word of that speech.

And I fucking hate this we had to "act to protect civilians". Fuck you. Was Darfur all a lie? Surely it was as the international community did absolutely shit other than send news crews.

well...different politicians, different times.

 

[SoulPlaya]

People are still pushing the "protect civilians" line? This had more to do with ensuring that the next leader of Libya will be friendly to Western interests than anything else.

 

[Riddick]

People are still pushing the "protect civilians" line? This had more to do with ensuring that the next leader of Libya will be friendly to Western interests than anything else.

Gaddafi was too the recent years. The problem for the west is that with Gaddafi in power Libya will never be stable again and they won't be a safe environment for the oil companies, that's why they want to get rid off him. That and the potential outcry of the public in case anyone did business with that butcher ever again.

 

[SoulPlaya]

Gaddafi was too the recent years. The problem for the west is that with Gaddafi in power Libya will never be stable again and they won't be a safe environment for the oil companies, that's why they want to get rid off him. That and the potential outcry of the public in case anyone did business with that butcher ever again.

Exactly. Foreign investment relies on stability, and it became clear in recent months that Gaddafi's days were numbered. Thus, it was time to replace him, and the west wants whomever that is to be friendly to their interests.

 

[Manos: The Hans of Fate]

It's funny all this Odyssey Dawn talk got me looking into the UK's unilateral humanitarian intervention from 2000 in Sierra Leone, in this case the General David Richards).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Palliser

This is an example of what I hope Libya can encourage again. The US does act in it's interests, who doesn't, but it doesn't mean we can't help others out in the process.

I like to see us do some good work in the Ivory Coast next. Personally I want the next time some two bit warlord is about to commit a war crime in a civilian village that he needs to wonder if that buzzing noise he heard is a hawk or a Global Hawk.

 

[cntr]

What about the OP? There's no justification for our involvement. If your argument is that those situations are different because military isn't involved, would you support US/UN intervention if protesters were being killed by the military in those countries?

No, the argument is that while other countries are killing protesters, we don't have the support to stop them. The attack on Libya is supported by the Arab League and the UN. An attack on Bahrain would not be; it would cause immense problems with future diplomacy.

 

[RustyNails]

People are still pushing the "protect civilians" line? This had more to do with ensuring that the next leader of Libya will be friendly to Western interests than anything else.

1:39am

French President Nicolas Sarkozy says international military action in Libya has prevented "thousands and thousands" of deaths over the past six days.

Its really easy to spout off whatever when its not your friends, families and acquaintances who were about to be slaughtered by the Gaddafi machine in Benghazi. The UN action has prevented a massacre and countless lives have been saved, but no, its the 'protecting western interests'.

Guess what, if we really wanted to 'protect western interests', we'd have protected Col. Gaddafi, not bomb his ass. If we really wanted to protect our oil contracts, we wouldn't have bombed his ass. Now we potentially destabilized the oil economy and fucked up any potential future oil contracts from Libya. But whatever. Believe what you want to believe man.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Having a lack of solidarity with the human race is a massive disappointment. Know nothing isolationists from both the libertarian and liberal sides show the real depth of their moral compass on issues like this.

And what moral compass do you and other interventionists show by picking and choosing which global events to participate in or ignore? The US has no business or obligation to fight other country's civil wars. In no way does that endorse the murdering of innocent people, and the suggestion is frankly pathetic

 

[twinturbo2]

Posted?

http://jalopnik.com/5785508/air-for...-after-charlie-sheen-and-battlestar-galactica

I'm just giggling that their cargo plane is going by the callsign "SHEEN 53". Does that plane run on tiger blood?

 

[RustyNails]

And what moral compass do you and other interventionists show by picking and choosing which global events to participate in or ignore? The US has no business or obligation to fight other country's civil wars. In no way does that endorse the murdering of innocent people, and the suggestion is frankly pathetic

Why is it so hard for you to understand that Libyan situation has completely different context to the situation in other conflicts? You want an intervention in Sudan? Fine, tell me how you want to go about it because frankly I'd love to hear how one would work. Do you want to isolate Bashir and intervene in a conflict that has absolutely no scope for foreign intervention? We have no Arab backing, no EU backing and no African backing. Not a single global body has asked for a UN mandate enforced by western military. We already have AU and UN troops in Sudan and ICC has issued arrest warrant for Bashir, and intervening with military in Sudan will result in negative outcome, something you're wrongly worried about here. There is no backing for intervention in Syria, Yemen, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia. There was no backing for intervention in Tunisia and Egypt. For pete's sake, there could have been a bloody massacre on UN's hands had US failed to assume leadership role. The Libyan deputy minister to UN who switched sides fiercely advocated for a NFZ, including Arab League, OIC, EU and host of other countries. It was USA who was dithering. So tell me how the intervention in Sudan works without pissing off the rest of the world and including Sudanese and I'm all ears, and tell me about YOUR moral compass which says that we shouldn't stop an easily stoppable massacre in one instance because the forces in the universe didn't align for us properly to stop massacres in every other instance.

 

[MmmSkyscraper]

Could you guys please take the legality/responsibility discussion somewhere else, such as the impeachment thread? It is an interesting and worthwhile conversation, but its kind of shitting up this thread that has been a great resource so far for the details and developments of the civil war.

Not trying to backseat mod, just a request.

/me mashes invisible Like button

 

[CHEEZMO™]

What IS that big-ass picture he likes to wear over his right breast?

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Guess what, if we really wanted to 'protect western interests', we'd have protected Col. Gaddafi, not bomb his ass. If we really wanted to protect our oil contracts, we wouldn't have bombed his ass. Now we potentially destabilized the oil economy and fucked up any potential future oil contracts from Libya. But whatever. Believe what you want to believe man.

It is in the interests of every single man, woman and child on this planet that Gaddafi is driven out. Another unpredictable dictator is not what this world needs. So yes it is in the wests interest to have him moved on, an ally in a largely hostile region as well as a trading partner with resources you want.

On 24 February 2011, resigned justice minister Mustafa Abdel-Jalil revealed that Muamar Gaddafi personally ordered the Lockerbie bombing.

Lest we forget.

If we want to discuss all this someone hit the new thread button and let us stop shitting up this thread.

ps - wth is that pic he wears on him?

 

[Walshicus]

Lest we forget.

I talked about this in a different thread, but I genuinely thought that the Libyan involvement in this was untrue and that Iran was a much more likely culprit.

I *still* think that Magrahi was a scapegoat though.

 

[Mgoblue201]

So again, Obama has said now (after the Pentagon said earlier in the week he was NOT the target) that the goal in Libya for the US is Regime change. Let's say we do that. Then what? Shall we let Libya pick up the pieces and go home? Stay? Who's going to pay for us to stay if we do?

I wanted to address this post from yesterday. What exactly do you mean "stay"? There isn't a single foreign boot on the ground that can stay. This is a large distinction between the present NFZ and a conflict such as Iraq. Of course, the entire question of whether Libya might need "military help" post-Gaddafi rests upon many other questions. The vital question is how much true support Gaddafi actually has. I think that the coalition is conducting the operation in such a way that it is attempting to pry away any incentives to actually support Gaddafi, ensuring that a transition can be peaceful. The transitional council is almost a form of government itself and represents a large segment of the Libyan people. It's a risk, but short of permanent civil war I don't think that coalition forces will be under a tremendous amount of pressure to "own" the consequences.

 

[GaimeGuy]

The UN has prevented another Darfur/Rwanda, and that is verifiable by sources. The only way it wouldn't have played out that way is if Gadaffi had a change of heart at hte last moment.

Is that worth invading a country? I think so.

 

[AlimNassor]

People don't realize if we start getting involved in Bahrain and yemen they'll forever hate us. they didn't ask for our help, and the Arab League would go nuts, not to mention Al-qaeda would use that excuse to get involved. Libya has always been fairly western and has always had a western influence. Ever since Carthage fell we have been over in Libya.

 

[Plumbob]

And what moral compass do you and other interventionists show by picking and choosing which global events to participate in or ignore? The US has no business or obligation to fight other country's civil wars. In no way does that endorse the murdering of innocent people, and the suggestion is frankly pathetic

Uhh they probably pick and choose based on our capacity to make a positive difference in each situation. If a country's citizens actively request help as they are slaughtered, that's pretty good grounds for intervention.

Furthermore just because we don't endorse every military intervention does not mean that Libya would be the only one we endorsed. That's some pretty liberal use of a broad brush.

 

[JayDubya]

The problem you're not seeing is that if you can achieve casus belli so easily, then there is no shortage of places we could go to war with at the drop of a hat.

 

[Wazzim]

People don't realize if we start getting involved in Bahrain and yemen they'll forever hate us. they didn't ask for our help, and the Arab League would go nuts, not to mention Al-qaeda would use that excuse to get involved. Libya has always been fairly western and has always had a western influence. Ever since Carthage fell we have been over in Libya.

I don't think anyone wants us to get involved in Yemen/Bahrain, not when things far worse happen every day in Africa.

 

[Cosmonaut X]

I talked about this in a different thread, but I genuinely thought that the Libyan involvement in this was untrue and that Iran was a much more likely culprit.

I *still* think that Magrahi was a scapegoat though.

Megrahi was a scapegoat - Private Eye's coverage of Lockerbie, among other accounts, convinced me of that.

I'd also caution against taking the word of a member of the Libyan government at face value, especially when there may be a lot of jockeying for influence/survival in any post-Gaddafi Libya. Weren't there similar stories of Saddam Hussein's involvement in X, Y and Z after the fall of his government that were subsequently proved to be gussied-up to benefit certain parties?

 

[Mgoblue201]

Perhaps if Sarkozy ever failed to win the next election in France, he could always run for the Presidency of Libya. At least there is some place he is appreciated.

 

[thekad]

Yemen's president and the country's top general are hashing out a settlement in which both men would resign within days, people familiar with the situation said, raising crucial questions of who will end up leading a key, though embattled, U.S. counterterrorism ally.

The outlines of a peaceful transition, to a civilian-led transitional government, emerged amid rising tension over the standoff between Yemeni President Ali Abdullah Saleh and pro-democracy protesters backed by Gen. Ali Mohsen al-Ahmar. The general this week broke ranks and declared his support for protesters demanding that the president resign immediately.

But why didn't Barry bomb Yemen?

 

[Walshicus]

People don't realize if we start getting involved in Bahrain and yemen they'll forever hate us. they didn't ask for our help, and the Arab League would go nuts, not to mention Al-qaeda would use that excuse to get involved. Libya has always been fairly western and has always had a western influence. Ever since Carthage fell we have been over in Libya.

Indeed. North Africa and Europe have histories and civilisations very much intertwined.

 

[RoH]

It is in the interests of every single man, woman and child on this planet that Gaddafi is driven out. Another unpredictable dictator is not what this world needs. So yes it is in the wests interest to have him moved on, an ally in a largely hostile region as well as a trading partner with resources you want

This is pure unadulterated crazy talk.

 

[Azih]

The problem you're not seeing is that if you can achieve casus belli so easily

It wasn't easy, Getting the Arab League to agree to the NFZ was a major major factor. Hell I think it was unprecedented and it was done without American arm twisting but French and British diplomacy and it was still a few days after that backing that the NFZ was enforced.

 

[Plumbob]

The problem you're not seeing is that if you can achieve casus belli so easily, then there is no shortage of places we could go to war with at the drop of a hat.

Examples, please.

 

[JayDubya]

Examples, please.

A dictator is oppressing and killing his own people?

It wholesale retroactively justifies the invasion of Iraq, for starters, but going forward?

North Korea comes to mind immediately, as does Iran (no one elected its Supreme Leader), Bahrain is having violent protests that our dear friend Saudi Arabia is involved in (monarchs), but hell, why start at the bottom when we could start at the top and work our way down.

China...

Of course, if your standard is inclusive only of UN agreement, then obviously China will never agree to invade itself so China cannot be wrong, which puts you in kind of a moral / logic bind.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

A dictator is oppressing and killing his own people?

It wholesale justifies Iraq, for starters, but going forward?

North Korea comes to mind immediately, as does Iran (no one elected its Supreme Leader), Bahrain is having violent protests that our dear friend Saudi Arabia is involved in (monarchs), but hell, why start at the bottom when we could start at the top and work our way down.

China...

are you being silly on purpose? there are some critical things that took place here which have resulted in this intervention. Chief among them is INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

If you think anyone would seek or obtain international cooperation in an ATTACK on NK, Iran, Bahrain, SA or China, it's time to think about officially committing yourself to the local crazy hospital. Those countries would have to attack someone else in order for military action to be sanctioned against them. And by "attack", I mean nothing short of a major offensive campaign or invasion. None of which are likely.

 

[JayDubya]

are you being silly on purpose? there are some critical things that took place which have resulted in this intervention. Chief among them is INTERNATIONAL COOPERATION.

If you think anyone would seek or obtain international cooperation in an ATTACK on NK, Iran, Bahrain, SA or China, it's time to think about officially committing yourself to the local crazy hospital.

No, I don't think China would agree to attack China, but I do think the standard that brings us to thinking we have a valid casus belli here would readily justify war with China.

I'm not advocating said war, of course, but then neither am I advocating war with Libya. I have a much higher standard of casus belli.

 

[Plumbob]

A dictator is oppressing and killing his own people?

It wholesale retroactively justifies the invasion of Iraq, for starters, but going forward?

North Korea comes to mind immediately, as does Iran (no one elected its Supreme Leader), Bahrain is having violent protests that our dear friend Saudi Arabia is involved in (monarchs), but hell, why start at the bottom when we could start at the top and work our way down.

China...

Of course, if your standard is inclusive only of UN agreement, then obviously China will never agree to invade itself so China cannot be wrong, which puts you in kind of a moral / logic bind.

Here's the problem. The standard wasn't "THERE'S BAD STUFF GOING ON BY A DICTATOR AND WE MUST INTERVENE NO MATTER WHAT" but "There's bad stuff going on, we have the chance to prevent that bad stuff going on without causing something worse than the status quo to occur." We also didn't intervene because he was a dictator, there were plenty of those before Libya and plenty will remain after. We intervened because he was a dictator who was slaughtering civilians rapidly.

War with North Korea would be devastating to the population as resources would be further diverted form their population to their war machine. It woudl risk the lives of thousands of South Koreans as well. On balance, it's bad.

War with Iran would spark terrorism, upheaval, insurgency, instability etc. just like it did in Iraq because there are no requests for intervention because thousands of people aren't being killed right now.

In Bahrain, maybe we should intervene. But we probably won't because we have oil interests with Saudi Arabia. That's kind of messed up and I don't support it.

Invoking war with China would be absurd because it would not be in the benefit of either government or either group of people.

Also, we weren't inciting active democratic revolution in Libya, it was already going on. In that sense Libya is totally different from Iraq.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

This is pure unadulterated crazy talk.

Question is why is it in Americas interest to remove him, that IMO is a perfectly logical reason.

 

[Dreams-Visions]

Here's the problem. The standard wasn't "THERE'S BAD STUFF GOING ON BY A DICTATOR AND WE MUST INTERVENE NO MATTER WHAT" but "There's bad stuff going on, we have the chance to prevent that bad stuff going on without causing something worse than the status quo to occur." We also didn't intervene because he was a dictator, there were plenty of those before Libya and plenty will remain after. We intervened because he was a dictator who was slaughtering civilians rapidly.

War with North Korea would be devastating to the population as resources would be further diverted form their population to their war machine. It woudl risk the lives of thousands of South Koreans as well. On balance, it's bad.

War with Iran would spark terrorism, upheaval, insurgency, instability etc. just like it did in Iraq because there are no requests for intervention because thousands of people aren't being killed right now.

In Bahrain, maybe we should intervene. But we probably won't because we have oil interests with Saudi Arabia. That's kind of messed up and I don't support it.

Also, we weren't inciting active democratic revolution in Libya, it was already going on. In that sense Libya is totally different from Iraq.

he didn't need anyone to explain that to him. he's smart enough to have been able to critically-think his way through this. the factors that would prevent any kind of international action aside from economic sanctions are obvious in each case. painfully obvious.

...which is why his question irritates me so. smart people asking dumb questions are a pet peeve.

Que?

I assumed he was trying to be sarcastic.

 

[Joel Was Right]

Does this mean the Allies will intervene if there was a conflict between Israel and Palestine next week with mass civilian casualties? They've demonstrated no interest to do so in Bahrain, in Yemen or Syria but if the situation was more urgent in Israel/Palestine, would anything happen? No on all accounts. There is yet no apparent ulterior motive for this action, but its illogical to believe this is purely on the basis of protecting civilian lives as we cannot ignore the obvious contradictions. Media seems more focused on televising military Pentagon and MoD briefings than examine this puzzle.

If I told you in 2004 that Colin Powells UN presentation showing evidence that Iraq was building chemical, biological and nuclear weapons was based on one former cab drivers testimony - a testimony many in the intelligence community itself dismissed, would you believe me? You'd respond by commenting to take off my 'tin foil' hat. But it was true, and the background debates and rhetoric under that was the opportunity to establish a true democracy in the heart of the Middle East - an argument in which those who doubted the WMD story found compelling, and whilst the evidence in this example suggests otherwise, "protecting civilians" is the mantra for this. Not equating the two in context, but rather that there are strong questions that are not being asked.

Libya has had close relations with the West in recent times so why would they overthrow one of their closest partners in the region? The politicians have yet to utter a word in regards to the killings happening elsewhere as I type this, so why Libya. What is it that we don't know

 

[RustyNails]

The UN has prevented another Darfur/Rwanda, and that is verifiable by sources. The only way it wouldn't have played out that way is if Gadaffi had a change of heart at hte last moment.

Is that worth invading a country? I think so.

I would pick on the word "invading" because it doesn't accurately describe what has happened. If you say invasion people immediately think Iraq 2003 and that is simply not true in Libya. We have a UN mandate, global support and request from Arab League to take action, no ground troops and no objective of killing Gaddafi (although it would be nice).

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Does this mean the Allies will intervene if there was a conflict between Israel and Palestine next week with mass civilian casualties? They've demonstrated no interest to do so in Bahrain, in Yemen or Syria but if the situation was more urgent in Israel/Palestine, would anything happen? No on all accounts. There is yet no apparent ulterior motive for this action, but its illogical to believe this is purely on the basis of protecting civilian lives as we cannot ignore the obvious contradictions. Media seems more focused on televising military Pentagon and MoD briefings than examine this puzzle.

If I told you in 2004 that Colin Powells UN presentation showing evidence that Iraq was building chemical, biological and nuclear weapons was based on one former cab drivers testimony - a testimony many in the intelligence community itself dismissed, would you believe me? You'd respond by commenting to take off my 'tin foil' hat. But it was true, and the background debates and rhetoric under that was the opportunity to establish a true democracy in the heart of the Middle East - an argument in which those who doubted the WMD story found compelling, and whilst the evidence in this example suggests otherwise, "protecting civilians" is the mantra for this. Not equating the two in context, but rather that there are strong questions that are not being asked.

Libya has had close relations with the West in recent times so why would they overthrow one of their closest partners in the region? The politicians have yet to utter a word in regards to the killings happening elsewhere as I type this, so why Libya. What is it that we don't know

Libya has just come back from being an international pariah. So yes there have been exercises by the country to boost its standing and efforts by the west to show a kinder, forgiving? face. Look at the Colonels recent international visits and the release by the former UK labour government of Libyan prisoners. Quite frankly I think the west has always wished him gone PR exercises aside and this was the perfect opportunity but they are gambling big time IMO. I still do not think the rebels are capable of an all out victory but we will see.



Gabron or anyone with some info:

Do we have some hard numbers on the number of missiles fired? This Guardian piece speculates less than 10 for the UK. Guardian

 

[Walshicus]

A dictator is oppressing and killing his own people?

It wholesale retroactively justifies the invasion of Iraq, for starters, but going forward?

No, not really. I mean oppression is a given, but killing on a level requiring intervention? Not in 2003. There were a number of valid periods prior to 2003 where that would have been justified though.

 

[Sqrt_minus_one]

Just as I finish typing that shit, PC Yvonne Fletcher's murder suspect has been arrested.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/25/libya-rebels-yvonne-fletcher-murder

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Question is why is it in Americas interest to remove him, that IMO is a perfectly logical reason.

It isn't an American interest. It's a human interest. We stepped forward to help because people were in need. Removing him prevents the military from killing the citizens they should be protecting. Why has, "doing the right thing," become so hard to justify?

 

[RustyNails]

It isn't an American interest. It's a human interest. We stepped forward to help because people were in need. Removing him prevents the military from killing the citizens they should be protecting. Why has, "doing the right thing," become so hard to justify?

Because people argue 'doing the right thing' should only include US citizens within its scope

 

[Ivan A Nguyen]

Because people argue 'doing the right thing' should only include US citizens within its scope

Well if there was easy access way to donate to a para military group, ala the A-Team, then I'd donate to them instead. As it is, I'll just continue to pay my taxes and ask that my government exercises a little humanity when faced with the murder of innocents.

 

[Joel Was Right]

It isn't an American interest. It's a human interest. We stepped forward to help because people were in need. Removing him prevents the military from killing the citizens they should be protecting. Why has, "doing the right thing," become so hard to justify?

I don't think the issue is as so much as whether the conflict is legitimate on the basis of civilian protection rather the behaviour of the international community, or the states involved here, is not the type to intervene militarily for this reason. The unavoidable fact is - one that's been constantly reiterated on almost every page - is why the double standards whilst the deaths of other innocent civilians are being ignored in the neighbouring region. When considered, it forces some to either think the military intervention in Libya is not based on humanitarian needs, or that there is a larger yet unknown reason at play.

If this were not largely a Western intervention, then a lot of the suspicion and doubt you see here would not have existed. But the questioning is legitimate nevertheless. However that itself shouldn't be translated to as 'the Libyan people don't deserve help'.

 

[RustyNails]

Well if there was easy access way to donate to a para military group, ala the A-Team, then I'd donate to them instead. As it is, I'll just continue to pay my taxes and ask that my government exercises a little humanity when faced with the murder of innocents.

I feel ya. I personally believe that we are citizens of human race first, then citizens of our respective countries. I also don't like arbitrary borders but that's a different topic.

 

[mentalfloss]

A bit old.. but figured I'd throw this in because we all love Chomsky.

Strikes will 'antagonise' many in Arab world, says Chomsky

Chomsky warns that direct military intervention in Libya will turn out to be a serious mistake.

“When the United States, Britain and France opt for military intervention, we have to bear in mind that these countries are hated in the region for very good reasons. The rich and powerful can say history is bunk but victims don’t have that luxury,” he says.

“Threatening moves, I’m sure, evoke all sorts of terrible thoughts and memories in the region – and many people across Africa and the Arab world will be seriously antagonised by military intervention.”

Chomsky adds that in Egypt public opinion polls have shown about 90 per cent of the population thinks the US is the worst threat they face.

He stresses that Libya is a humanitarian problem. “It is also a civil war and intervening in a civil war is a complicated business,” he says. “We may not like it, but there is support for Gadafy.”

On shifts in western alliances with authoritarian regimes, Chomsky says that in a long series of cases it became impossible for the West to support its favourite dictators.

“At that point there’s a game plan that goes into operation. It’s being followed in the Arab world, basically to send dictators out to pasture when you can’t support them any longer and produce ringing declarations of your love of democracy,” he says.

Saudi Arabia provides an example of the contradiction in western policy, he says.

“Saudi Arabia is the centre of radical Islamism. It has also been the major ally of the United States and Britain, which have tended over the years to support radical Islam in opposition to secular nationalism. Saudi Arabia is a pretty harsh dictatorship. Prior to the recent Day of Rage the government made it clear that it would not be tolerated – and it wasn’t.”

Further to this, we have seen Saudi troops dispatched into Bahrain with grim consequences

.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0321/1224292709087.html

 

[mentalfloss]

Canadian to lead NATO's Libya mission

Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard of Canada will take over command of the NATO mission in Libya, Canadian Defence Minister Peter MacKay said Friday.

NATO agreed Thursday to assume responsibility for a no-fly zone over Libya, part of a UN-backed mission to protect civilians from forces loyal to longtime leader Moammar Gadhafi.

Bouchard has been designated to lead NATO's military campaign in Libya, MacKay told a briefing in Ottawa, noting the full scope of the NATO mission is still evolving.

MacKay said he expected NATO to make the formal announcement shortly. He described Bouchard as a "formidable leader, with tremendous character and ability."

His most recent job was deputy commander of NORAD, reporting to a U.S. general.

Bouchard, a native of Chicoutimi, Que., studied at the University of Manitoba and joined the Armed Forces in 1974, graduating in 1976 as a helicopter pilot. Among his many postings, he once served with the U.S. army at Fort Hood, Texas.

Canada has committed six CF-18s to the Libya operation, and a seventh is in the area as a backup. Two CP-140 Aurora patrol planes sent to help with the mission have arrived in Italy, MacKay said from Ottawa.

In the last 24 hours, two Canadian jets successfully targeted military sites near the besieged coastal city of Misrata, MacKay said.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Defence Secretary Robert Gates have both said that American command of the operations would last only a few days.

U.S. officials say Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reached a preliminary agreement on Thursday with her counterparts from Turkey, France and Britain. But Turkey raised last-minute objections, the Washington Post reported.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/25/libya-nato-mission.html?ref=rss

 

[RustyNails]

A bit old.. but figured I'd throw this in because we all love Chomsky.

.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2011/0321/1224292709087.html

Professor Chomsky is correct that the strikes will antagonize many in the Muslim world, but that hinges on how the rest of our mission plays out.

 

[Jason's Ultimatum]

As long as we don't intervene in the political reconstruction of Libya, then I don't see any problems.

Arabs around the world need to make up their minds: It's either we intervene and they get pissed, or we don't intervene while Gaddafi commits genocide, arabs still get pissed at us.