U.S. attacks Libya

N. writes:

The news is all over the place including Drudge. It appears the plan is to destroy all surface to air missile positions, radars and related communications channels as well as attack Libyan airfields using US, British and French forces. Then the no-fly zone will become the responsibility of the British and French.

So now we have three wars being run under the “reset” administration.

ABC reports:

More than 112 Tomahawk cruise missiles struck over 20 targets inside Libya today in the opening phase of an international military operation the Pentagon said was aimed at stopping attacks led by Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and enforcing a U.N.-backed no-fly-zone. President Obama, speaking from Brazil shortly after he authorized the missile attacks, said they were part of a “limited military action” to protect the Libyan people.

“I want the American people to know that the use of force is not our first choice and it’s not a choice I make lightly,” Obama said. “But we cannot stand idly by when a tyrant tells his people that there will be no mercy.”

The first air strikes, in what is being called Operation Odyssey Dawn, were launched from a mix of U.S. surface ships and one British submarine in the Mediterranean Sea at 2 p.m. ET, Vice Adm. William E. Gortney told reporters at a Pentagon briefing.

They targeted Libyan air defense missile sites, early warning radar and key communications facilities around Tripoli, Misratah, and Surt, but no areas east of that or near Benghazi….

- end of initial entry -

March 20

Jim V. writes:

… President Obama, speaking from Brazil shortly after he authorized the missile attacks …

From the sands of Ipanema to the Shores of Tripoli?

Obama announced a No Fly Zone and then proceeded immediately to bomb sites within Libya. It’s my understanding that targets in a NFZ can only be fired upon when fired at or locked on to by surface anti-aircraft batteries. As in the North and South NFZ’s in Iraq, US and British airships did not carry out random bombing of sites within those zones, but would only destroy sites which had locked onto them by radar, or actually fired upon them. But here we have the US has proceeding to attack apparently without provocation. So the announcement of the No Fly Zone was a flat-out lie- a deliberate deception. He’s also taken the possibility of a ground assault off the table, and set a strict window of time for our engagement. How much of this is untrue, and what else will we find out that they’ve planned only after it happens?

Even the Clinton administration, with their criminal aggression on Serbia, attempted to keep up appearances that international law and norms of conduct were being adhered to. Clinton at least sought Congressional authorization. There was months of public debate before launching that assault and a general strategy was placed before the American people. The fact that Obama is proceeding in the way that he is should raise major red flags. This is just lawlessness.

Nothing was run by the American people or our representatives in Congress. No justification has been made for our actions. We are not bound by treaty to intervene on behalf of an ally. This is not in response to an act of war committed against us, not an imminent threat or even a remote threat to our security, and there is no humanitarian crisis such as genocide which would oblige us to intervene as signatories to the Genocide Act. This seems to be -hate to say it- unprecedented.

It would be nice if there were some type of opposition party that could attempt to place some restraint on this lawless administration, but that does not seem to be the case. What passes for an opposition has been instrumental in engineering this crime. I won’t now go into why I believe that Western governments and intelligence agencies have, far from being caught flat-footed by this wave of Middle Eastern unrest, been actually playing a part in fomenting it in accordance with a plan laid down for some years. I no longer recognize this land of my birth.

I think this is the time that I proclaim the Traditionalist Credo.

LA replies:

I’m not sure you’re right on a couple of points. Ever since the possible no-fly zone has been discussed, it’s been said that having a NFZ would require first knocking out Kaddafi’s air defense facilities. You now point out that this is not the way the NFZ was done in Iraq, and you may be right, but you can’t claim that the attack on air defense facilities in Libya as prelude to NFZ is some kind of surprise or proof of a lie, as it’s been openly discussed from the start.

Second, I don’t think Clinton got congressional authorization for the bombing of Serbia. Here’s my memory of it: (a) The Clinton administration issued the Rambouillet Ultimatum declaring that Serbia had to stop fighting in Kosovo and had to admit NATO troops into Serbia to supervise the country; (b) Serbia refused and said that if you bomb us, we will expel the Albanians from Kosovo; (c) the U.S./NATO began to bomb Serbia; (d) Serbia expelled the Albanians from Kosovo; (e) The U.S. then began much heavier bombing campaign of Serbia and Kosovo which went on for weeks until Serbia admitted the expelled Kosovars back into Kosovo.

I agree this Libya action is unprecedented, with the exception of our action in Serbia. And the total silence of the Congressional Republicans is horrible. I just googled

boehner libya obama

and found nothing on the first page of results referring to anything Boehner has said about Libya.

I’m glad you’ve discovered the Traditionalist Credo.

LA continues:

However, when I read about the extent of the U.S. bombing of Libya, that does sound much more extensive than anything I had associated with enforcing a no-fly zone.

Vivek G. writes:

In one of my previous comments, I mentioned that Mahomet is the role model for Kaddafi. So my question is, if Obama was present during Mahomet’s times, would he order bombing Mahomet’s armies?

It is pretty certain that Kaddaffi has given a carte blanche to his loyalists and mercenaries and has declared to them: “Go and strike terror into the hearts of rebels, kill the men, rape their women, take their children and women as slaves, plunder their wealth, and force them into submission. You can do to them whatever you want, just accept my leadership.” How is it different from what Mahomet did?

Also, I have deliberately used an archaic spelling for Mahomet. There is a long beeline of Islam appeasers who bend backwards in spelling Islamic names as accurately as possible. It is high time that non-Muslims, who want to survive as non-Muslims, gave scant regards to such concerns, even at the risk of occasional ambiguities. And please note, mere surviving is not important, surviving, as we are, that is, surviving as non-Muslims has to be the goal.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at March 19, 2011 11:58 PM | Send