Military

Monday

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

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,

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

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

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

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

Friday

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

Daniel Korski

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

Daniel Korski

Learning from recent history

With a UN resolution now passed, Prime Minister David Cameron has displayed diplomatic skills his critics believed he did not possess. As NATO is planning to enforce an expansive no-fly zone over Libya, it is worth pausing for a moment to consider such a mission’s aims and to learn the lessons from recent wars. The strategic aim of the mission cannot only be to protect Libyan civilians. Framed in this way, the international community will face the same problems it did Bosnia: for instance, the Srebrenica massacre happened while a no-fly zone was already in place. A no-fly zone will not force Colonel Ghadaffi from power. As troops are not

Thursday

Peter Hoskin

The UN decides to take "all necessary measures" against Gaddafi

“There will be no mercy. Our troops will be coming to Benghazi tonight.” Perhaps it was the murderous threat contained within Gaddafi’s latest radio message that shocked the United Nations into action today — because shocked into action they have been. After sweating and toiling over the precise formulation of a resolution on Libya, the UN Security Council finally reached the voting stage this evening. And it has now voted 10-0 in favour of member states taking “all necessary measures … to protect civilian and populated areas, including Benghazi, while excluding an occupation force.” Brazil, India, China, Russia and — staggeringly — Germany all abstained. What this means, in practice,

Sunday

Fraser Nelson

Cameron's principled stand over Libya

Slowly, David Cameron seems to be mutating into a hawk over Libya. I’ve been increasingly impressed with the way he has made the case for a no-fly zone – knowing that it is an unpopular cause outside of the Arab world. Since the evacuation chaos, which he apologised for, he has pretty much led calls for some form of military intervention to stop Gaddafi bombing his own people back into submission. He was laughed at to start with; accused of making it up on the hoof. But now the 22-nation Arab League backs this position, as does Sarko. It may have been messy at first – but that’s how these

Saturday

Peter Hoskin

The Arab League adds its weight to the calls for a no-fly zone

We’re pushing for a no-fly zone. France is pushing for a no-fly zone. And now the Arab League is pushing for a no-fly zone too. The news fresh out of Cairo is that the organisation has voted in favour of restricting airspace above Libya. It will now push the UN to do the same, which is a considerably more proactive than the stance it adopted earlier this week. While one vote doesn’t really seal anything, this is potentially a crucial moment. NATO has made regional support a key condition of a no-fly zone – and now it has it, officially. Those who have been sniffing around for alternatives to the

Friday

David Blackburn

The growing clamour for intervention

In the last two days, Nato and European leaders have declared that Gaddafi must go, but both have baulked at taking unilateral action. Their reticence has sparked a response from those in favour of intervention. Speaking in Brussels today, David Cameron said that situation on the ground may be getting worse and that Europe and the West in general “must be ready to act if the situation requires it”. Liberal interventionist Bill Clinton went further. Speaking at the Women in the World summit, he said: “I wouldn’t do it if they [the rebels] hadn’t asked… [But] it’s not a fair fight. They’re being killed by mercenaries. I think we should

Thursday

Daniel Korski

Liberal hawks

From the moment David Cameron started agitating for a no fly-zone, he’s been looking for allies. France and Denmark look like they will support him, with Russia and India opposed and China perhaps willing to abstain at the United Nations. But what about closer to home, inside the coalition? Since the formation of the coalition, every policy has been tested by what will it do for relations between the parties? Oddly, however, there has been no such test about Libyan policy. Newspapers have not been writing about splits, differences and agreements. That may be because Lord Ashdown went on the Today Programme and voiced conditional support for a no-fly zone.

Wednesday

Peter Hoskin

UN or not UN?

The garbled horror stories just keep on rolling out of Libya. According to the latest reports, Gaddafi’s troops have attacked the rebels in Zawiyah with redoubled violence and force. Aircraft, tanks, bombs, mortars – all have been used against the city and its people, with what one assumes are bloody results. As one resident puts it to Reuters, “Zawiyah as you knew it no longer exists.” It is unclear whether the rebels have now lost control there, but that is a strong possibility. Unsurprising, then, that the West is positioning itself to act. David Cameron, we are told, has been speaking with Barack Obama about the full spread of options