Reflections from news and commentary of the day
Subscribe To
Posts
All Comments
Thursday, March 31, 2011
US cannot sacrifice Taiwan to court the Chinese
Wednesday, March 30, 2011
The Buying and Selling of the Pentagon (Part I)
The Buying and Selling of the Pentagon (Part I)
Dina Rasor, Truthout: "With the DoD budget ballooning again and again over the past 40 years and the news yesterday that we have already spent $600 million in the first week in defending Libya from the air, there appears to finally be some movement to look into what is wrong with our defense spending. We have fired 191 cruise missiles at a cost of $288 million alone ($1.5 million per missile) - just one illustration on how we have spent too much for our weapons, and the Pentagon has admitted that it is unauditable and cannot successfully track most of its procurement money."
Read the Article
Dina Rasor, Truthout: "With the DoD budget ballooning again and again over the past 40 years and the news yesterday that we have already spent $600 million in the first week in defending Libya from the air, there appears to finally be some movement to look into what is wrong with our defense spending. We have fired 191 cruise missiles at a cost of $288 million alone ($1.5 million per missile) - just one illustration on how we have spent too much for our weapons, and the Pentagon has admitted that it is unauditable and cannot successfully track most of its procurement money."
Read the Article
Commentary: Saudi nukes in gulf
Commentary: Saudi nukes in gulf
Washington (UPI) Mar 29, 2011 - Overlooked in the welter of fast moving events throughout the Arab world was a Saudi Arabian call for transforming the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council into "an entity identical to the (27-nation) European Union" - plus nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has grown impatient "Waiting for Godot." Samuel Beckett's famous play depicts the "meaninglessness of life," with its repetitive plot, ... more
Washington (UPI) Mar 29, 2011 - Overlooked in the welter of fast moving events throughout the Arab world was a Saudi Arabian call for transforming the six-nation Gulf Cooperation Council into "an entity identical to the (27-nation) European Union" - plus nuclear weapons. Saudi Arabia has grown impatient "Waiting for Godot." Samuel Beckett's famous play depicts the "meaninglessness of life," with its repetitive plot, ... more
Nukes in Europe: Coming Home Soon
Nukes in Europe: Coming Home Soon
The United States and 13 NATO allies are actively seeking to remove U.S. nuclear weapons from Europe.
The Earthquake in Japanese Energy Policy
The Earthquake in Japanese Energy Policy
In this crisis Japan's power generation, energy security, and energy plans have taken perhaps the most profound and protracted blow.
SIX DAYS OF ODYSSEY DAWN (LIBYA) COST $400 MILLION
SIX DAYS OF ODYSSEY DAWN (LIBYA) COST $400 MILLION
The first six days of Odyssey Dawn, the US war in Libya, cost an estimated $400 million, according to a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.
"Using operational details provided by DOD and DOD cost factors, a 'bottoms-up' estimate of the cost of initial operations suggests that in the first six days of operations, DOD has spent roughly $400 million," the report said.
"U.S. participation in Operation Odyssey Dawn and NATO operations around Libya raises a number of questions for Congress, including the role of Congress in authorizing the use of force, the costs of the operation, the desired politico-strategic end state, the role of U.S. military forces in an operation under international command, and many others," said the CRS report, which fleshed out many of those questions.
See "Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress," March 28, 2011.
The first six days of Odyssey Dawn, the US war in Libya, cost an estimated $400 million, according to a new report (pdf) from the Congressional Research Service.
"Using operational details provided by DOD and DOD cost factors, a 'bottoms-up' estimate of the cost of initial operations suggests that in the first six days of operations, DOD has spent roughly $400 million," the report said.
"U.S. participation in Operation Odyssey Dawn and NATO operations around Libya raises a number of questions for Congress, including the role of Congress in authorizing the use of force, the costs of the operation, the desired politico-strategic end state, the role of U.S. military forces in an operation under international command, and many others," said the CRS report, which fleshed out many of those questions.
See "Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress," March 28, 2011.
Uncommmon Commentary from Agence Global
Guts and Guns and Values
We may be witnessing the birth of an exciting new era in which Arab and American values actually converge, for the best interest of both parties.
more...
Regional Implications of Syria’s Crisis
On all fronts -- Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel -- Syria is a key player. Its distraction by internal problems reshuffles the regional cards, and adds to the general sense of insecurity and latent violence.
more...
Historic Challenges in Syria and Jordan
Important new dynamics are taking hold in Jordan and Syria, reflecting fearless boldness in the activism of citizens who had long remained docile in the face of pervasive security controls.
more...
NFL Lockout!
Players are demanding to see the owners’ financial ledgers, to choose their own doctors and, for the first time in NFL history, to be treated like grown men. The NFL Players Association understands that it needs solidarity from working people to win.
more...
An Extraordinary Week of the Arab Citizen Revolt
The widespread extent and profound nature of the challenges to many Arab regimes by their own people represent nothing less than the first real process of national self-determination that the Arab world has ever experienced.
more...
Arab Leaders Must Assume Responsibility for Their Region
Enlightened action by Arab leaders could yet spare their countries further turmoil and loss of innocent life. The fate of the region should not be left to external powers.
more...
Chimes of Freedom in Benghazi
These are the times when nuanced arguments of diplomatic principles must be set aside in order to embrace with all our might the compelling opportunity to come to the aid of brave Libyans who are paying for their liberty with their lives.
more...
We may be witnessing the birth of an exciting new era in which Arab and American values actually converge, for the best interest of both parties.
more...
Regional Implications of Syria’s Crisis
On all fronts -- Iran, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel -- Syria is a key player. Its distraction by internal problems reshuffles the regional cards, and adds to the general sense of insecurity and latent violence.
more...
Historic Challenges in Syria and Jordan
Important new dynamics are taking hold in Jordan and Syria, reflecting fearless boldness in the activism of citizens who had long remained docile in the face of pervasive security controls.
more...
NFL Lockout!
Players are demanding to see the owners’ financial ledgers, to choose their own doctors and, for the first time in NFL history, to be treated like grown men. The NFL Players Association understands that it needs solidarity from working people to win.
more...
An Extraordinary Week of the Arab Citizen Revolt
The widespread extent and profound nature of the challenges to many Arab regimes by their own people represent nothing less than the first real process of national self-determination that the Arab world has ever experienced.
more...
Arab Leaders Must Assume Responsibility for Their Region
Enlightened action by Arab leaders could yet spare their countries further turmoil and loss of innocent life. The fate of the region should not be left to external powers.
more...
Chimes of Freedom in Benghazi
These are the times when nuanced arguments of diplomatic principles must be set aside in order to embrace with all our might the compelling opportunity to come to the aid of brave Libyans who are paying for their liberty with their lives.
more...
Energy headlines: Opec set for $1,000bn in export revenues
Energy headlines: Opec set for $1,000bn in export revenues
- Opec set for $1,000bn in export revenues – FT
- Gulf of Mexico lawsuit fears hit BP – The Telegraph
- BP could be charged with manslaughter – The Times
- BP faces revolt on £8m Hayard pay – The Telegraph
- The politics of oil: Wells of anxiety – FT
- Covering Libyan oil eats into Saudi capacity – FT
- Warning on oil price threat to the UK – FT
- Oil companies go to war with Osborne – The Times
- Statoil takes on Osborne over $10bn North Sea projects – FT
- Cnooc, Total sign agreements to buy Tullow Ugandan assets – Bloomberg
- Tepco shares slide amid nationalisation fears – FT
- Japan to scrap stricken reactors – BBC
- Science chief backs nuclear renewal – FT
- UK has £10bn chance to reuse spent nuclear fuel – WSJ
- Germany’s nuclear tensions erupt – FT
- Berlusconi in power policy rethink – FT
- EDF in corporate row with Italy – FT
- GE steps up drive on energy with $3.2bn deal – FT
- GE Converteam buy to boost UK wind industry – The Telegraph
- GE plugged into demand – FT Lex
- Proposal to gut DOE loan guarantee programme – WSJ
- California passes higher clean energy goal – Reuters
- Spain regulator halts subsidies to 350 solar plants – Reuters
- Lithuania focuses on breaking Russia’s grip – FT
- Gulf of Mexico lawsuit fears hit BP – The Telegraph
- BP could be charged with manslaughter – The Times
- BP faces revolt on £8m Hayard pay – The Telegraph
- The politics of oil: Wells of anxiety – FT
- Covering Libyan oil eats into Saudi capacity – FT
- Warning on oil price threat to the UK – FT
- Oil companies go to war with Osborne – The Times
- Statoil takes on Osborne over $10bn North Sea projects – FT
- Cnooc, Total sign agreements to buy Tullow Ugandan assets – Bloomberg
- Tepco shares slide amid nationalisation fears – FT
- Japan to scrap stricken reactors – BBC
- Science chief backs nuclear renewal – FT
- UK has £10bn chance to reuse spent nuclear fuel – WSJ
- Germany’s nuclear tensions erupt – FT
- Berlusconi in power policy rethink – FT
- EDF in corporate row with Italy – FT
- GE steps up drive on energy with $3.2bn deal – FT
- GE Converteam buy to boost UK wind industry – The Telegraph
- GE plugged into demand – FT Lex
- Proposal to gut DOE loan guarantee programme – WSJ
- California passes higher clean energy goal – Reuters
- Spain regulator halts subsidies to 350 solar plants – Reuters
- Lithuania focuses on breaking Russia’s grip – FT
Are North Sea taxes a greater investment risk than war in the Middle East?
Don’t Taint a Victory for Iranian Human Rights
http://www.americanprogress.
Don’t Taint a Victory for Iranian Human Rights
Administration Should Keep MEK on Foreign Terrorist Organizations List
Why America No Longer Gets Asia
Provocations - Evan A. Feigenbaum
Asia is being reconnected at last. Chinese traders are again hawking their wares in Kyrgyz bazaars. Straits bankers are financing deals in India, with Singapore having become the second-largest source of India’s incoming foreign direct investment over the last decade (behind only Mauritius, which retains first place because of tax avoidance incentives). China lies at the core of industrial supply and production chains that stretch across Southeast Asia. And Chinese workers are building ports and infrastructure from Bangladesh to Pakistan to Sri Lanka. The governments of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have sold electricity southward, reconnecting their power grids to Afghanistan, while Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have signed an intergovernmental memorandum to sell electricity to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean money is flowing across Asia.
In short, Asia is being reborn, and remade. Yet, the United States is badly prepared for this momentous rebirth, which is at once stitching Asia back together and making the United States less relevant in each of Asia’s constituent parts. Asians are, in various ways, passing the United States by, restoring ancient ties, and repairing long-broken strategic and economic links.
The United States will not cease to be a power in Asia, particularly in East Asia where Washington remains an essential strategic balancer, vital to stability. That security-related role has been reinforced in recent months, as China’s behavior has scared its neighbors silly, from Japan to Vietnam to India. But unless U.S. policymakers adapt to the contours of a more integrated Asia, and soon, they will miss opportunities in every part of the region over time—and find the United States less relevant to Asia’s future.
Download the full article, available in Adobe Acrobat [.pdf] format.
How do I order the printed version of TWQ?
Why America No Longer Gets Asia
Evan A. Feigenbaum is Head of the Asia practice group at Eurasia Group, and also Adjunct Senior Fellow for Asia at the Council on Foreign Relations. From 2001 to 2009, he served at the State Department as Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Central Asia, and member of the Policy Planning Staff with principal responsibility for East Asia and the Pacific.
Asia is being reconnected at last. Chinese traders are again hawking their wares in Kyrgyz bazaars. Straits bankers are financing deals in India, with Singapore having become the second-largest source of India’s incoming foreign direct investment over the last decade (behind only Mauritius, which retains first place because of tax avoidance incentives). China lies at the core of industrial supply and production chains that stretch across Southeast Asia. And Chinese workers are building ports and infrastructure from Bangladesh to Pakistan to Sri Lanka. The governments of Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan have sold electricity southward, reconnecting their power grids to Afghanistan, while Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan have signed an intergovernmental memorandum to sell electricity to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Chinese, Japanese, and Korean money is flowing across Asia.
In short, Asia is being reborn, and remade. Yet, the United States is badly prepared for this momentous rebirth, which is at once stitching Asia back together and making the United States less relevant in each of Asia’s constituent parts. Asians are, in various ways, passing the United States by, restoring ancient ties, and repairing long-broken strategic and economic links.
The United States will not cease to be a power in Asia, particularly in East Asia where Washington remains an essential strategic balancer, vital to stability. That security-related role has been reinforced in recent months, as China’s behavior has scared its neighbors silly, from Japan to Vietnam to India. But unless U.S. policymakers adapt to the contours of a more integrated Asia, and soon, they will miss opportunities in every part of the region over time—and find the United States less relevant to Asia’s future.
Download the full article, available in Adobe Acrobat [.pdf] format.
How do I order the printed version of TWQ?
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Opec set for £1trillion export revenues Opec, the oil producers’ cartel, will reap $1,000bn in export revenues this year for the first time if crude prices remain above $100 a barrel, according to the International Energy Agency.
| Opec set for £1trillion export revenues |
| Opec, the oil producers’ cartel, will reap $1,000bn in export revenues this year for the first time if crude prices remain above $100 a barrel, according to the International Energy Agency. http://link.ft.com/r/73UJGG/ |
The Kill Team
News Updates from SWJ on Libya 3/29
Libya / Operation Odyssey Dawn
Obama’s Remarks on Libya - New York Times transcript
Obama Cites Limits of U.S. Role in Libya - New York Times
Obama Vigorously Defends Libya Intervention - Washington Post
Obama Defends Libya Fight - Wall Street Journal
Obama Tries to Navigate a Thorny Path on Libya - Los Angeles Times
‘Deadly Advance’ Obama’s Trigger - Washington Times
Mission Necessary to Protect 'Common Humanity' - Christian Science Monitor
Obama Cites 'Responsibility' of U.S. in Libya Intervention - USA Today
Brutality in Libya Required Swift Action, Obama Says - Boston Globe
President Obama Defends U.S. Role in Libya - Boston Herald
Obama Defends Libya Intervention - BBC News
Libya: Obama Defends U.S. Military Involvement - Daily Telegraph
Obama: Libya Action Necessary, Limited - Seattle Times
Obama Defends Military Mission in Libya - FOX News
Obama Says Libya Massacre Would Stain World Conscience - Bloomberg
Obama on Libya: 'We Have a Responsibility to Act' - Associated Press
Obama Vows U.S. Forces Won't Get Bogged Down in Libya - Reuters
White House: ‘No Mercy’ is Not a Doctrine - Washington Times
Reactions to Obama's Address on Libya - CNN News
Speech Draws Praise, Questions, Criticism In Congress - Wall Street Journal
McCain Praises Obama's Libya Speech - Weekly Standard
Analyst View: Obama Sets Out Libya Strategy - Reuters
Rebel Advance Halted Outside Qaddafi’s Hometown - New York Times
Rebels Approach Gaddafi Home Town - Washington Post
Libya Rebels Move on Gadhafi Hometown - Wall Street Journal
Rebels Close in on Gadhafi Hometown - Washington Times
Libyan Rebels Stopped Short of Sirte - Los Angeles Times
Rebels Battle for Road to Gaddafi Hometown Sirte - BBC News
Libyan Rebels Bear Down on Gadhafi's Hometown - Associated Press
Rebels Push West Before Libya Crisis Talks - Reuters
Libyan Forces, Rebels Face Off in Divided Misrata - Reuters
Gritty Urban Battle Still Rages on Forgotten Front - Washington Post
Fierce Fighting Roils City 'Liberated' by Kadafi Troops - Los Angeles Times
U.S. Air Power Gets Expansive Role - New York Times
U.S. Deploys Low-flying Attack Planes - Washington Post
Powers Meet in U.K. to Map Path for Libya Future - Reuters
Report: Libya's Foreign Minister in Tunisia - Associated Press
Libyan Rebels Promise Oil Exports - Washington Post
Libyan Rebels Aim to Revive Oil Exports - New York Times
Libya Rebels Say Seeking to Lift Oil Sanctions - Reuters
Qatar Recognizes Libyan Rebel Body as Legitimate - Reuters
Libyans Seek News of Vanished Relatives - New York Times
Teasing Out Policy Insight From a Character Profile - New York Times
Where’s the Strategy to Preserve Success? - Washington Post editorial
President Obama on Libya - New York Times editorial
Clear, Cogent but Not Always Persuasive - Los Angeles Times editorial
The President’s Speech - Washington Times editorial
More Clarity on Libya from Obama - Washington Post opinion
Strong on Justification, Short on Strategy - Washington Post opinion
You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby - Weekly Standard opinion
Obama Made His Case - Washington Post opinion
In Obama’s Speech, Echoes of JFK - Washington Post opinion
Libya Speech: Satisfactory, but Not Satisfying - Foreign Policy opinion
Obama Doctrine’s Murky Details - Washington Post opinion
Obama Talks Big Picture, Not Details - Foreign Policy opinion
Speech Leaves Questions Unanswered - National Journal opinion
Why Libya? Because We Could - Foreign Policy opinion
Everything and Nothing - National Review opinion
The Devil We Know - Weekly Standard opinion
Give War a Chance - Weekly Standard opinion
Obama’s Remarks on Libya - New York Times transcript
Obama Cites Limits of U.S. Role in Libya - New York Times
Obama Vigorously Defends Libya Intervention - Washington Post
Obama Defends Libya Fight - Wall Street Journal
Obama Tries to Navigate a Thorny Path on Libya - Los Angeles Times
‘Deadly Advance’ Obama’s Trigger - Washington Times
Mission Necessary to Protect 'Common Humanity' - Christian Science Monitor
Obama Cites 'Responsibility' of U.S. in Libya Intervention - USA Today
Brutality in Libya Required Swift Action, Obama Says - Boston Globe
President Obama Defends U.S. Role in Libya - Boston Herald
Obama Defends Libya Intervention - BBC News
Libya: Obama Defends U.S. Military Involvement - Daily Telegraph
Obama: Libya Action Necessary, Limited - Seattle Times
Obama Defends Military Mission in Libya - FOX News
Obama Says Libya Massacre Would Stain World Conscience - Bloomberg
Obama on Libya: 'We Have a Responsibility to Act' - Associated Press
Obama Vows U.S. Forces Won't Get Bogged Down in Libya - Reuters
White House: ‘No Mercy’ is Not a Doctrine - Washington Times
Reactions to Obama's Address on Libya - CNN News
Speech Draws Praise, Questions, Criticism In Congress - Wall Street Journal
McCain Praises Obama's Libya Speech - Weekly Standard
Analyst View: Obama Sets Out Libya Strategy - Reuters
Rebel Advance Halted Outside Qaddafi’s Hometown - New York Times
Rebels Approach Gaddafi Home Town - Washington Post
Libya Rebels Move on Gadhafi Hometown - Wall Street Journal
Rebels Close in on Gadhafi Hometown - Washington Times
Libyan Rebels Stopped Short of Sirte - Los Angeles Times
Rebels Battle for Road to Gaddafi Hometown Sirte - BBC News
Libyan Rebels Bear Down on Gadhafi's Hometown - Associated Press
Rebels Push West Before Libya Crisis Talks - Reuters
Libyan Forces, Rebels Face Off in Divided Misrata - Reuters
Gritty Urban Battle Still Rages on Forgotten Front - Washington Post
Fierce Fighting Roils City 'Liberated' by Kadafi Troops - Los Angeles Times
U.S. Air Power Gets Expansive Role - New York Times
U.S. Deploys Low-flying Attack Planes - Washington Post
Powers Meet in U.K. to Map Path for Libya Future - Reuters
Report: Libya's Foreign Minister in Tunisia - Associated Press
Libyan Rebels Promise Oil Exports - Washington Post
Libyan Rebels Aim to Revive Oil Exports - New York Times
Libya Rebels Say Seeking to Lift Oil Sanctions - Reuters
Qatar Recognizes Libyan Rebel Body as Legitimate - Reuters
Libyans Seek News of Vanished Relatives - New York Times
Teasing Out Policy Insight From a Character Profile - New York Times
Where’s the Strategy to Preserve Success? - Washington Post editorial
President Obama on Libya - New York Times editorial
Clear, Cogent but Not Always Persuasive - Los Angeles Times editorial
The President’s Speech - Washington Times editorial
More Clarity on Libya from Obama - Washington Post opinion
Strong on Justification, Short on Strategy - Washington Post opinion
You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby - Weekly Standard opinion
Obama Made His Case - Washington Post opinion
In Obama’s Speech, Echoes of JFK - Washington Post opinion
Libya Speech: Satisfactory, but Not Satisfying - Foreign Policy opinion
Obama Doctrine’s Murky Details - Washington Post opinion
Obama Talks Big Picture, Not Details - Foreign Policy opinion
Speech Leaves Questions Unanswered - National Journal opinion
Why Libya? Because We Could - Foreign Policy opinion
Everything and Nothing - National Review opinion
The Devil We Know - Weekly Standard opinion
Give War a Chance - Weekly Standard opinion
SWJ Commentary on President Obama's Speech on the US Mission in Libya
Obama’s Remarks on Libya - New York Times transcript
Obama Cites Limits of U.S. Role in Libya - New York Times
Obama Vigorously Defends Libya Intervention - Washington Post
Obama Defends Libya Fight - Wall Street Journal
Obama Tries to Navigate a Thorny Path on Libya - Los Angeles Times
‘Deadly Advance’ Obama’s Trigger - Washington Times
Mission Necessary to Protect 'Common Humanity' - Christian Science Monitor
Obama Cites 'Responsibility' of U.S. in Libya Intervention - USA Today
Brutality in Libya Required Swift Action, Obama Says - Boston Globe
President Obama Defends U.S. Role in Libya - Boston Herald
Obama Defends Libya Intervention - BBC News
Libya: Obama Defends U.S. Military Involvement - Daily Telegraph
Obama: Libya Action Necessary, Limited - Seattle Times
Obama Defends Military Mission in Libya - FOX News
Obama Says Libya Massacre Would Stain World Conscience - Bloomberg
Obama on Libya: 'We Have a Responsibility to Act' - Associated Press
Obama Vows U.S. Forces Won't Get Bogged Down in Libya - Reuters
White House: ‘No Mercy’ is Not a Doctrine - Washington Times
Reactions to Obama's Address on Libya - CNN News
Speech Draws Praise, Questions, Criticism In Congress - Wall Street Journal
McCain Praises Obama's Libya Speech - Weekly Standard
Analyst View: Obama Sets Out Libya Strategy - Reuters
Where’s the Strategy to Preserve Success? - Washington Post editorial
President Obama on Libya - New York Times editorial
Clear, Cogent but Not Always Persuasive - Los Angeles Times editorial
The President’s Speech - Washington Times editorial
More Clarity on Libya from Obama - Washington Post opinion
Strong on Justification, Short on Strategy - Washington Post opinion
You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby - Weekly Standard opinion
Obama Made His Case - Washington Post opinion
In Obama’s Speech, Echoes of JFK - Washington Post opinion
Libya Speech: Satisfactory, but Not Satisfying - Foreign Policy opinion
Obama Doctrine’s Murky Details - Washington Post opinion
Obama Talks Big Picture, Not Details - Foreign Policy opinion
Speech Leaves Questions Unanswered - National Journal opinion
The President's Speech on Libya - Abu Muqawama opinion
Why Libya? Because We Could - Foreign Policy opinion
Everything and Nothing - National Review opinion
Obama Cites Limits of U.S. Role in Libya - New York Times
Obama Vigorously Defends Libya Intervention - Washington Post
Obama Defends Libya Fight - Wall Street Journal
Obama Tries to Navigate a Thorny Path on Libya - Los Angeles Times
‘Deadly Advance’ Obama’s Trigger - Washington Times
Mission Necessary to Protect 'Common Humanity' - Christian Science Monitor
Obama Cites 'Responsibility' of U.S. in Libya Intervention - USA Today
Brutality in Libya Required Swift Action, Obama Says - Boston Globe
President Obama Defends U.S. Role in Libya - Boston Herald
Obama Defends Libya Intervention - BBC News
Libya: Obama Defends U.S. Military Involvement - Daily Telegraph
Obama: Libya Action Necessary, Limited - Seattle Times
Obama Defends Military Mission in Libya - FOX News
Obama Says Libya Massacre Would Stain World Conscience - Bloomberg
Obama on Libya: 'We Have a Responsibility to Act' - Associated Press
Obama Vows U.S. Forces Won't Get Bogged Down in Libya - Reuters
White House: ‘No Mercy’ is Not a Doctrine - Washington Times
Reactions to Obama's Address on Libya - CNN News
Speech Draws Praise, Questions, Criticism In Congress - Wall Street Journal
McCain Praises Obama's Libya Speech - Weekly Standard
Analyst View: Obama Sets Out Libya Strategy - Reuters
Where’s the Strategy to Preserve Success? - Washington Post editorial
President Obama on Libya - New York Times editorial
Clear, Cogent but Not Always Persuasive - Los Angeles Times editorial
The President’s Speech - Washington Times editorial
More Clarity on Libya from Obama - Washington Post opinion
Strong on Justification, Short on Strategy - Washington Post opinion
You’ve Come a Long Way, Baby - Weekly Standard opinion
Obama Made His Case - Washington Post opinion
In Obama’s Speech, Echoes of JFK - Washington Post opinion
Libya Speech: Satisfactory, but Not Satisfying - Foreign Policy opinion
Obama Doctrine’s Murky Details - Washington Post opinion
Obama Talks Big Picture, Not Details - Foreign Policy opinion
Speech Leaves Questions Unanswered - National Journal opinion
The President's Speech on Libya - Abu Muqawama opinion
Why Libya? Because We Could - Foreign Policy opinion
Everything and Nothing - National Review opinion
DOD News Briefing with Vice Adm. Gortney from the Pentagon on Libya Operation Odyssey Dawn
 | U.S. Department of Defense Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense (Public Affairs) News Transcript |
| Presenter: Vice Adm. Bill Gortney, Director of the Joint Chiefs of Staff | March 28, 2011 |
DOD News Briefing with Vice Adm. Gortney from the Pentagon on Libya Operation Odyssey Dawn
Here's how things looked on Friday. Regime forces were outside Ajdabiya, and the city was very much contested. As I briefed you then, the regime was still able to reinforce their positions there. There was also -- they was still inside Misurata and Zintan and showing no sign of relenting.
Next slide, please.
Here's what things look like today. We now assess that opposition forces are in control of Ajdabiya and have pushed west to within 80 miles of Sirte. We believe the regime is preparing to dig in at Sirte, setting up a number of checkpoints and placing tanks throughout the city; likewise for Zintan, where we assess the regime is preparing to reinforce existing positions.
Reporting from Misurata indicates heavy fighting, particularly near the city center. So not too much of a change since I last briefed you. Word has come in to us this morning that the regime is busing reporters out there today. For what purpose, we do not know.
I'm comfortable telling you, however, that we still have not received a single confirmed report of civilian casualties caused by the coalition, and that we will continue to be just as precise as we can in keeping up the pressure on regime forces while protecting innocent civilians. In fact, I'm quite confident that in and around Misurata, regardless of who is there to watch, we have been and we will be effective at hitting exactly what we're aiming at.
That's a good segue to my next slide. I understand we've been keeping you updated with facts and figures over the weekend, so what I'll do here is just cover the last 24 hours.
As you can see, coalition strike aircraft continued to go after targets on the ground, most of which were targets of opportunity, such as the regime forces we hit near Misurata, Sirte and Ras Lanuf.
Six TLAM [Tomahawk Land-Attack Missile] cruise missiles were launched from sea last night against the headquarters facility of Gadhafi's 32nd Brigade. This is one of Gadhafi's most loyal units and are also one of the most active in terms of attacking innocent people. We're still awaiting a good assessments of those strikes.
We also struck some pre-planned targets around Tripoli and Sabha, mostly ammunition stores and bunkers, though we did take out an SA-6 mobile surface-to-air missile site in Tripoli as well. I'm told, over the last 24 hours, the coalition has flown 178 sorties, the majority of which were strike related. And just as I briefed you on Friday, our coalition partners continue to increase their participation.
Next slide, please.
Here's a laydown of the overall sortie count thus far. The box at the right totals it all up since the beginning of Operation Odyssey Dawn. The bar graph shows you our work over the weekend. The green bar is the total sorties for each day. The blue represents those flown by U.S. pilots, red by the coalition. And as you can see, the numbers continue to rise across the board, but the labor share is definitely evening out.
I'd note for you the addition of pilots from Belgium, who are now helping us enforce the no-fly zone. I'd also like to point out that the Qatari pilots have flown several no-fly zone missions since they arrived on station, and they were scheduled to fly another eight sorties today. We also now have in the operating area 12 fighter aircraft from the United Arab Emirates. We expect that their pilots will be joining the flight schedule in the next day or so.
Next slide, please.
Here you can see a breakdown of just the sorties that are devoted to air-to-ground missions, the protect-the-people missions. Again, the numbers at right are totals for the entire operation. From Friday to Sunday, there was an increase in strikes from 91 to 107, but the majority each day were flown by our partner-nation pilots. I know it seems as though I'm trying to hammer home a point here, and I guess I am. It's simply this: U.S. military participation in this operation is, as we have said all along, changing to one primarily of support. Indeed, one of our submarines, the USS Providence, has now moved on to previously assigned tasking, having completed all strike missions assigned to her. And maybe we aren't flying the bulk of combat sorties anymore, but the U.S. is now providing nearly 80 percent of all air refueling, almost 75 percent of aerial surveillance hours and 100 percent of all electronic warfare missions. In other words, we remain committed to the mission and to the mandate we've been told to enforce, but that commitment is very much shared by others, and now it's going to be led by others.
You all saw the announcement yesterday that NATO will assume command of the entire mission in the next few days, having already assumed command last week of the maritime embargo mission and this past weekend of the no-fly zone enforcement. The details of exactly when and exactly how future command relationships will be established are still being discussed, and I'm just not able to lay much of that out for you, but we will as soon as we have it. But I can tell you that we are all very comfortable there won't be any dropped balls in the handoff, and that everyone is working hard to ensure the tempo of operations is not disrupted nor the pressure on the regime lifted.
In short, it sort of comes back to my comments at the start. The situation on the ground has been certainly changing, and it is changing. But in the air, and the -- in the air, the coalition keeps flying; and at sea, we keep patrolling. And I'll now take your questions.
CAPT. JOHN KIRBY (Special Assistant for Public Affairs, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of CAPT. KIRBY): Bob?
Q: Admiral, the effect if not the intention of western intervention in Libya with air power has been to help the rebels regain the initiative. As your first map showed, they've gone on the offensive and moving westward. I'm wondering if you intend to exploit that success by adding additional aircraft to the -- to the fight, like close air-support aircraft like the A-10?
ADM. GORTNEY: Well, first off, we're not in direct support of the opposition. It's not part of our mandate, sir. And we're not coordinating with the opposition. Our strategy continues to be to pressure him where we think it's going to give us the best effect. We see that possibly occurring here, but given the events that you see on the battlefield. And anytime that you do see an opportunity like that, good commanders in the field will try and exploit that opportunity. And you see if we -- the number of the strike sorties that you saw, I think, is a direct result of that.
Q: And the aircraft that I mentioned, are you having A-10s and AC-130s?
ADM. GORTNEY: We have employed A-10s and AC-130s over the weekend. Yes, sir.
Q: Can you say where and in what capacity and --
ADM. GORTNEY: No, I'm not able to tell you that at this time.
Q: So it was Saturday and Sunday?
ADM. GORTNEY: Yeah, it was over the weekend. Yes, sir.
Q: Hi, Mike Evans, London Times.
Can I ask -- you say you're not coordinating with the opposition. Presumably you're communicating with the opposition. Otherwise would you --
ADM. GORTNEY: We have no mil-to-mil communications with the opposition.
Q: Can you make absolutely sure that you're attacking regime forces rather than opposition forces?
ADM. GORTNEY: Well, that is the challenge, the positive identification of the target. That's why the discipline of the air crew from all of the coalition partners is absolutely critical. Right now it appears that where we are striking, the opposition is not where we can make -- assist in that positive identification, identifying friend from foe.
CAPT. KIRBY: Terry
Q: Admiral, you talked about the allies overall taking the majority of the strike sorties. Which countries are actually participating in strike sorties? And does the U.S. still have the lion's share of any single nation, right?
ADM. GORTNEY: Yes. As an example, if we could go to slide three, please, you'll see U.S., U.K., [sic; Denmark], Canada and Belgium in the last 24 hours.
CAPT. KIRBY: Denmark?
ADM. GORTNEY: And Denmark, I'm sorry.
Q: Also on Friday you talked about how Gadhafi -- you have been diminishing the ability of Gadhafi to affect command and control over the fielded forces, but you hadn't yet seen any kind of reverse momentum on the ground. What's the situation now? Have you seen any change in that, the effects of that? Are they setting in?
ADM. GORTNEY: Well, I would say that the big shift that we saw from Friday to today is exactly the result of that. Whether it's confusion, whether it's extending -- their supply lines are being over-extended, but we saw a pretty significant shift. Go to slide one, to slide two -- slide one, please. On the 25th, the regime forces over here, and this morning, about 60 nautical miles from Sirte, a pretty significant withdrawal on their part.
Q: Sir, what's the difference between the kind of strikes you're describing and simply strikes that would destroy the Libyan military, period?
ADM. GORTNEY: I'm not sure what your question --
Q: Well, in other words, you describe, for instance, the attack on the headquarters of the 32nd Brigade, these strikes against headquarters down in Mustafa. There just seems to be a fairly thin line here between stopping assaults on civilians and simply taking out the Libyan military.
ADM. GORTNEY: Okay. All right. We're paying particular attention on the lines of communication, the command and control, the ability to resupply those forces that are being the most active against the attacks on the civilians. So, what's the difference between this and, say, another conflict? It's just the target -- the specific targets -- the target types are not different; it's where we're trying to go after them which is different.
Q: So you're leaving significant capability?
ADM. GORTNEY: I would say we're putting significant -- I would say we're not leaving significant fire power. Any place that we can see ammunition storage facilities, things of that nature, that we're going after those as well.
Q: So maybe it's easier to ask what you're not going after.
ADM. GORTNEY: Well, I'm having a hard time really understanding your question, sir. I mean, once again, we're going after those forces --
Q: It's the old line about mission creep. Is it simply to relieve the pressure on civilians in these towns along the coast, or is it basically an all-out assault on Gadhafi's military to dismember it?
ADM. GORTNEY: No, I would definitely not say mission creep. The objectives -- the targeting objectives from the very first, from the first strikes on the afternoon Eastern Standard Time on the 19th, remain the same.
Q: Well, what would be something that isn't on the target list, some military --
ADM. GORTNEY: I'm just going to stick to the targets that we're going after.
Q: To follow up on David's question a little bit, and specifically about Sirte, slide three, I guess, showed American air attacks against Libyan maneuver forces at Sirte.
But by all accounts that we're getting out of Libya, there is no threat to civilians in Sirte. It's Gadhafi's birthplace, apparently filled with Gadhafi supporters. So what would be the threat to civilians that would be presented by Libyan military forces in Sirte?
ADM. GORTNEY: The military forces targeted around Sirte are command-and-control-related -- command and control, doing the command and control for the forces that are to the east of them. So, once again, you want to focus on -- you want to create confusion at the front, go in after command and control at the rear and supply lines in between and ammunition facilities anywhere that we can find them.
Q: And the only reason I ask is because on the chart, it says maneuver forces, not command-and-control facility.
ADM. GORTNEY: OK. Let me double check, make sure that we accurately captured that.
CAPT. KIRBY: Tony?
Q: Do you have any specifics on the number of ordnance dropped?
ADM. GORTNEY: I do. We're up to 199 TLAMs, seven from coalition, and a little over 600 precision-guided munitions, 455 from the U.S., 147 from the coalition.
Q: On specific units, too, you mentioned the 32nd. Can you give a sense of the level of destruction being meted out to that unit over these last few days? And how are you quantifying it; tanks destroyed, or what?
ADM. GORTNEY: From the last 24, we don't have the bomb damage assessment from those last 24 hours. And once again, we're not into -- as we do an assessment of the effects on the battlefield, we're not counting tanks and armored personnel carriers destroyed. That's not the effect we're -- that's not how we're going to measure the effect. What we want to measure the effect is, what is the -- what are those attacks doing to how the maneuver force and the command and control is being applied?
Q: Is it your assessment that at this point on that specific brigades -- and since Gadhafi's son allegedly is running it -- reportedly is running it?
ADM. GORTNEY: We haven't seen the effect on the -- on the 32nd yet, but from the rest of the strikes, I think the results of where the -- where the battle has taken us over the weekend is a direct reflection of how our effects are being shown.
Q: You're using the Warthog, the A-10, and then the AC-130Us, I guess. Are those allowing you to attack Gadhafi's forces in the cities now --
ADM. GORTNEY: I'm not -- I'm not going to talk about specifically how any of the weapons systems are being employed.
Q: Thanks.
CAPT. KIRBY: Okay. Jen, go ahead.
Q: Yeah. I'm trying to understand why we don't see any French planes part of the strike forces.
ADM. GORTNEY: If you would -- on today's Air Tasking Order [ATO], there's quite a few French strike missions being flown. It just happened in the last 24 hours. There weren't any.
Q: Okay. And in Sirte, I'm trying to understand, if you have a situation where Gadhafi's forces are fighting against opposition forces, will coalition planes strike in the Sirte area?
ADM. GORTNEY: I'm not going to get into the hypothetical. If there's -- if there's regime forces that are outside of Sirte and they're attached to the command and control, we'll most likely take them under attack.
Q: And do you still have evidence that Gadhafi's son is in charge of the 32nd brigade?
ADM. GORTNEY: I don't have any intelligence regarding Gadhafi's son at this time.
CAPT. KIRBY: Jim?
Q: Admiral, could I ask you to look at the command, the -- and specifically the transfer of command? What is actually entailed with that? Because when we transfer command from units in Iraq or Afghanistan, that's like a month-long process. And we're doing -- and you seem to be doing this very quickly. What exactly is entailed with shifting command to NATO?
ADM. GORTNEY: Well, the specifics are still being worked out. The maritime embargo was fairly easy and straightforward. They started taking on the no-fly zone mission, I believe it was Saturday morning; and we'll see them taking over the total mission, including the civilian protection mission, in the coming days. Neither one of the -- or any of the commanders involved are anticipating any problems with that. One of the benefits of transitioning to a NATO -- to NATO is, is we've been working with NATO for many years and we understand the command structure, we exercise together, we operate in Afghanistan together. So that's why it's a pretty high confidence that we're not going to drop the ball on it.
CAPT. KIRBY: Tom?
Q: Sir, could you -- you mentioned there was fighting that's still pretty fierce in Misurata. Can you characterize it? Is it -- are Gadhafi's forces using tanks?
ADM. GORTNEY: I'm not going to characterize the type of fighting within the city. Once again, we're focusing on that activity that's outside the city.
Q: Could I follow up just quickly on Tony's question, too? Are there are any attacks that the coalition is mounting inside cities now?
ADM. GORTNEY: I'm not going to specifically talk about where -- other than that, in and around the city.
Q: Sir, aside from the Providence, do you have any indications about planes and ships next slated to leave Odyssey Dawn or other assets, the unique capabilities, so to speak, that are flowing in?
ADM. GORTNEY: Yeah, as we are working on defining the command arrangements, we'll -- they're also working on those assets that are required, that NATO will need to be able to do that. And those forces that aren't needed will be redeployed.
Q: Admiral, to follow on that question, in addition to the sub that's no longer on station, can you tell us how many TLAM shooters are currently there on station?
ADM. GORTNEY: The number of TLAM shooters I don't have in any of my notes right here in front of me right now, but we can provide that.
CAPT KIRBY: We can get that.
Q: Are there any details you can share with us about the humanitarian-aid dimension of this operation?
ADM. GORTNEY: AFRICOM [Africa Command] is heavily involved in planning for the humanitarian-assistance missions and doing that with our international partners and non-governmental agencies.
Q: Thank you. The Turkish prime minister said today that Turkey will take over the running of Benghazi for --
ADM. GORTNEY: I've heard those reports, but the level of coordination between AFRICOM and Turkey, I'm not -- I'm not at liberty to discuss.
Q: Do you think that Gadhafi's forces are digging in -- you said around Sirte and Zintan -- are they digging in in the cities, or are they digging in on the outskirts?
ADM. GORTNEY: I don't have those specifics for you.
Q: In an email published by the New York Times, General Ham said that he saw little evidence that very few of Gadhafi's forces were defecting, and that a lot of the gains that the rebels have made could be very temporary.
Is that your assessment? What is your assessment from your --
ADM. GORTNEY: Well, General Ham is the commander, and I'll defer to General Ham on his opinion. Clearly the opposition is not well organized, and it is not a very robust organization. I mean, that's obvious. So any gain that they make is tenuous based on that. I mean, it's -- clearly, they're achieving a benefit from the actions that we're taking. We're not coordinated with it. But I think General Ham's assessment is pretty good.
CAPT. KIRBY: Jen?
Q: Do you know who the opposition is, and does it matter to you?
ADM. GORTNEY: We're not talking with the opposition. We have -- we would like a much better understanding of the opposition. We don't have it. So yes, it does matter to us, and we're trying to fill in those gaps, knowledge gaps.
Q: Of the 983 sorties, do you know of a single instance where a single one of those aircraft came under fire from Gadhafi's forces?
ADM. GORTNEY: Last night, we have reporting of a -- what we think is a ballistic missile launch of maybe an SA-2 or an SA-3. It was a pilot's in-flight report. We're investigating that. That's the only one that I'm aware of.
I will tell you, as a -- as an aviator, every time you're flying over hostile countries, you're assuming you're being shot at. The triple-A [anti-aircraft artillery] -- there's a lot of aimed triple-As up there and unaimed triple-As and -- as well as a significant number in the thousands of MANPADs [man-portable air-defense systems], IR [infrared] missiles. Those are the threats, and they're looking for them. And you have to assume that they're coming out there. But of the reports, we only -- I only know of that one from last night.
Q: Of the 983, only -- and not even a confirmed report yet. Don't you find that --
ADM. GORTNEY: Those are the ones that I'm aware of, of the mission reports and I'm not poring through the 983 mission reports anymore.
CAPT KIRBY: We have time for just one more.
Yeah, Luis.
Q: Admiral, I think by definition, the A-10 and the AC-130 are defined as combat-support aircraft. Obviously, you're not in coordination with the ground forces, the opposition, but what -- these aircraft are clearly targeting Libyan -- Gadhafi's forces, maneuver brigades, I guess. Is that the message, that with these aircraft we're going to take you out?
ADM. GORTNEY: Well, both those platforms are -- expend precision munitions. So do F-16s, so do F-18s, so do Rafales. They're precision munitions. So it's really the -- it's not so much the platform as the weapon that's expending it.
So I don't call them combat support. They're combat aircraft, and they deliver a precision effect.
CAPT KIRBY: Thanks, everybody.
http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=4803
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya
The White HouseOffice of the Press Secretary
For Immediate Release
March 28, 2011
Remarks by the President in Address to the Nation on Libya
National Defense University
Washington, D.C.
7:31 P.M. EDT
THE PRESIDENT: Tonight, I’d like to update the American people on the international effort that we have led in Libya –- what we’ve done, what we plan to do, and why this matters to us.
I want to begin by paying tribute to our men and women in uniform who, once again, have acted with courage, professionalism and patriotism. They have moved with incredible speed and strength. Because of them and our dedicated diplomats, a coalition has been forged and countless lives have been saved.
Meanwhile, as we speak, our troops are supporting our ally Japan, leaving Iraq to its people, stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe. As Commander-in-Chief, I’m grateful to our soldiers, sailors, airmen, Marines, Coast Guardsmen, and to their families. And I know all Americans share in that sentiment.
For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom. Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world’s many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act. That’s what happened in Libya over the course of these last six weeks.
Libya sits directly between Tunisia and Egypt -– two nations that inspired the world when their people rose up to take control of their own destiny. For more than four decades, the Libyan people have been ruled by a tyrant -– Muammar Qaddafi. He has denied his people freedom, exploited their wealth, murdered opponents at home and abroad, and terrorized innocent people around the world –- including Americans who were killed by Libyan agents.
Last month, Qaddafi’s grip of fear appeared to give way to the promise of freedom. In cities and towns across the country, Libyans took to the streets to claim their basic human rights. As one Libyan said, “For the first time we finally have hope that our nightmare of 40 years will soon be over.”
Faced with this opposition, Qaddafi began attacking his people. As President, my immediate concern was the safety of our citizens, so we evacuated our embassy and all Americans who sought our assistance. Then we took a series of swift steps in a matter of days to answer Qaddafi’s aggression. We froze more than $33 billion of Qaddafi’s regime’s assets. Joining with other nations at the United Nations Security Council, we broadened our sanctions, imposed an arms embargo, and enabled Qaddafi and those around him to be held accountable for their crimes. I made it clear that Qaddafi had lost the confidence of his people and the legitimacy to lead, and I said that he needed to step down from power.
In the face of the world’s condemnation, Qaddafi chose to escalate his attacks, launching a military campaign against the Libyan people. Innocent people were targeted for killing. Hospitals and ambulances were attacked. Journalists were arrested, sexually assaulted, and killed. Supplies of food and fuel were choked off. Water for hundreds of thousands of people in Misurata was shut off. Cities and towns were shelled, mosques were destroyed, and apartment buildings reduced to rubble. Military jets and helicopter gunships were unleashed upon people who had no means to defend themselves against assaults from the air.
Confronted by this brutal repression and a looming humanitarian crisis, I ordered warships into the Mediterranean. European allies declared their willingness to commit resources to stop the killing. The Libyan opposition and the Arab League appealed to the world to save lives in Libya. And so at my direction, America led an effort with our allies at the United Nations Security Council to pass a historic resolution that authorized a no-fly zone to stop the regime’s attacks from the air, and further authorized all necessary measures to protect the Libyan people.
Ten days ago, having tried to end the violence without using force, the international community offered Qaddafi a final chance to stop his campaign of killing, or face the consequences. Rather than stand down, his forces continued their advance, bearing down on the city of Benghazi, home to nearly 700,000 men, women and children who sought their freedom from fear.
At this point, the United States and the world faced a choice. Qaddafi declared he would show “no mercy” to his own people. He compared them to rats, and threatened to go door to door to inflict punishment. In the past, we have seen him hang civilians in the streets, and kill over a thousand people in a single day. Now we saw regime forces on the outskirts of the city. We knew that if we wanted -- if we waited one more day, Benghazi, a city nearly the size of Charlotte, could suffer a massacre that would have reverberated across the region and stained the conscience of the world.
It was not in our national interest to let that happen. I refused to let that happen. And so nine days ago, after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, I authorized military action to stop the killing and enforce U.N. Security Council Resolution 1973.
We struck regime forces approaching Benghazi to save that city and the people within it. We hit Qaddafi’s troops in neighboring Ajdabiya, allowing the opposition to drive them out. We hit Qaddafi’s air defenses, which paved the way for a no-fly zone. We targeted tanks and military assets that had been choking off towns and cities, and we cut off much of their source of supply. And tonight, I can report that we have stopped Qaddafi’s deadly advance.
In this effort, the United States has not acted alone. Instead, we have been joined by a strong and growing coalition. This includes our closest allies -– nations like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey –- all of whom have fought by our sides for decades. And it includes Arab partners like Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, who have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.
To summarize, then: In just one month, the United States has worked with our international partners to mobilize a broad coalition, secure an international mandate to protect civilians, stop an advancing army, prevent a massacre, and establish a no-fly zone with our allies and partners. To lend some perspective on how rapidly this military and diplomatic response came together, when people were being brutalized in Bosnia in the 1990s, it took the international community more than a year to intervene with air power to protect civilians. It took us 31 days.
Moreover, we’ve accomplished these objectives consistent with the pledge that I made to the American people at the outset of our military operations. I said that America’s role would be limited; that we would not put ground troops into Libya; that we would focus our unique capabilities on the front end of the operation and that we would transfer responsibility to our allies and partners. Tonight, we are fulfilling that pledge.
Our most effective alliance, NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone. Last night, NATO decided to take on the additional responsibility of protecting Libyan civilians. This transfer from the United States to NATO will take place on Wednesday. Going forward, the lead in enforcing the no-fly zone and protecting civilians on the ground will transition to our allies and partners, and I am fully confident that our coalition will keep the pressure on Qaddafi’s remaining forces.
In that effort, the United States will play a supporting role -- including intelligence, logistical support, search and rescue assistance, and capabilities to jam regime communications. Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation -- to our military and to American taxpayers -- will be reduced significantly.
So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.
That’s not to say that our work is complete. In addition to our NATO responsibilities, we will work with the international community to provide assistance to the people of Libya, who need food for the hungry and medical care for the wounded. We will safeguard the more than $33 billion that was frozen from the Qaddafi regime so that it’s available to rebuild Libya. After all, the money doesn’t belong to Qaddafi or to us -- it belongs to the Libyan people. And we’ll make sure they receive it.
Tomorrow, Secretary Clinton will go to London, where she will meet with the Libyan opposition and consult with more than 30 nations. These discussions will focus on what kind of political effort is necessary to pressure Qaddafi, while also supporting a transition to the future that the Libyan people deserve -- because while our military mission is narrowly focused on saving lives, we continue to pursue the broader goal of a Libya that belongs not to a dictator, but to its people.
Now, despite the success of our efforts over the past week, I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya. Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. Moreover, even after Qaddafi does leave power, 40 years of tyranny has left Libya fractured and without strong civil institutions. The transition to a legitimate government that is responsive to the Libyan people will be a difficult task. And while the United States will do our part to help, it will be a task for the international community and –- more importantly –- a task for the Libyan people themselves.
In fact, much of the debate in Washington has put forward a false choice when it comes to Libya. On the one hand, some question why America should intervene at all -– even in limited ways –- in this distant land. They argue that there are many places in the world where innocent civilians face brutal violence at the hands of their government, and America should not be expected to police the world, particularly when we have so many pressing needs here at home.
It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what’s right. In this particular country -– Libya -- at this particular moment, we were faced with the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We also had the ability to stop Qaddafi’s forces in their tracks without putting American troops on the ground.
To brush aside America’s responsibility as a leader and -– more profoundly -– our responsibilities to our fellow human beings under such circumstances would have been a betrayal of who we are. Some nations may be able to turn a blind eye to atrocities in other countries. The United States of America is different. And as President, I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action.
Moreover, America has an important strategic interest in preventing Qaddafi from overrunning those who oppose him. A massacre would have driven thousands of additional refugees across Libya’s borders, putting enormous strains on the peaceful –- yet fragile -– transitions in Egypt and Tunisia. The democratic impulses that are dawning across the region would be eclipsed by the darkest form of dictatorship, as repressive leaders concluded that violence is the best strategy to cling to power. The writ of the United Nations Security Council would have been shown to be little more than empty words, crippling that institution’s future credibility to uphold global peace and security. So while I will never minimize the costs involved in military action, I am convinced that a failure to act in Libya would have carried a far greater price for America.
Now, just as there are those who have argued against intervention in Libya, there are others who have suggested that we broaden our military mission beyond the task of protecting the Libyan people, and do whatever it takes to bring down Qaddafi and usher in a new government.
Of course, there is no question that Libya -– and the world –- would be better off with Qaddafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal, and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military mission to include regime change would be a mistake.
The task that I assigned our forces -– to protect the Libyan people from immediate danger, and to establish a no-fly zone -– carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support. It’s also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next.
To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
As the bulk of our military effort ratchets down, what we can do -- and will do -- is support the aspirations of the Libyan people. We have intervened to stop a massacre, and we will work with our allies and partners to maintain the safety of civilians. We will deny the regime arms, cut off its supplies of cash, assist the opposition, and work with other nations to hasten the day when Qaddafi leaves power. It may not happen overnight, as a badly weakened Qaddafi tries desperately to hang on to power. But it should be clear to those around Qaddafi, and to every Libyan, that history is not on Qaddafi’s side. With the time and space that we have provided for the Libyan people, they will be able to determine their own destiny, and that is how it should be.
Let me close by addressing what this action says about the use of America’s military power, and America’s broader leadership in the world, under my presidency.
As Commander-in-Chief, I have no greater responsibility than keeping this country safe. And no decision weighs on me more than when to deploy our men and women in uniform. I’ve made it clear that I will never hesitate to use our military swiftly, decisively, and unilaterally when necessary to defend our people, our homeland, our allies and our core interests. That's why we’re going after al Qaeda wherever they seek a foothold. That is why we continue to fight in Afghanistan, even as we have ended our combat mission in Iraq and removed more than 100,000 troops from that country.
There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. Sometimes, the course of history poses challenges that threaten our common humanity and our common security -– responding to natural disasters, for example; or preventing genocide and keeping the peace; ensuring regional security, and maintaining the flow of commerce. These may not be America’s problems alone, but they are important to us. They’re problems worth solving. And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.
In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -– but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity are upheld by all.
That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States –- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country –- this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies.”
This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.
Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes. And then there will be places, like Iran, where change is fiercely suppressed. The dark forces of civil conflict and sectarian war will have to be averted, and difficult political and economic concerns will have to be addressed.
The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change. Only the people of the region can do that. But we can make a difference.
I believe that this movement of change cannot be turned back, and that we must stand alongside those who believe in the same core principles that have guided us through many storms: our opposition to violence directed at one’s own people; our support for a set of universal rights, including the freedom for people to express themselves and choose their leaders; our support for governments that are ultimately responsive to the aspirations of the people.
Born, as we are, out of a revolution by those who longed to be free, we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith -- those ideals -- that are the true measure of American leadership.
My fellow Americans, I know that at a time of upheaval overseas -- when the news is filled with conflict and change -- it can be tempting to turn away from the world. And as I’ve said before, our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star -- the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.
But let us also remember that for generations, we have done the hard work of protecting our own people, as well as millions around the globe. We have done so because we know that our own future is safer, our own future is brighter, if more of mankind can live with the bright light of freedom and dignity.
Tonight, let us give thanks for the Americans who are serving through these trying times, and the coalition that is carrying our effort forward. And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.
Thank you. God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America. (Applause.) Thank you.
END 7:58 P.M. EDT
Iraq Oil update
Iraq Oil update
The Iraqi oil ministry has a target of 3.26 million barrels per day by Dec 31, 2011.
Wall Street Journal - International oil firms that won mega-projects in southern Iraq expect to boost the country's crude oil output capacity by 600,000 barrels a day by the end of the year.
Netanyahu to Abbas: You can't have peace with both Israel and Hamas
Published 21:50 28.03.11
Netanyahu to Abbas: You can't have peace with both Israel and Hamas
Palestinian president willing to give up hundreds of million dollars in U.S. aid if necessary to forge a unity deal with Hamas, says top adviser.
Netanyahu to Abbas: You can't have peace with both Israel and Hamas
Palestinian president willing to give up hundreds of million dollars in U.S. aid if necessary to forge a unity deal with Hamas, says top adviser.
Attack on Libya May Unleash a Long War
Institute for Policy Studies March 28, 2011
http://www.ips-dc.org/
Attack on Libya May Unleash a Long War
Libyan protesters asked for help, but the military
attacks they're getting may actually create a whole new
set of problems that could last a very long time.
by Phyllis Bennis
http://www.ips-dc.org/
Attack on Libya May Unleash a Long War
Libyan protesters asked for help, but the military
attacks they're getting may actually create a whole new
set of problems that could last a very long time.
by Phyllis Bennis
Energy headlines: Libyan rebels aim to start oil exports
Energy headlines: Libyan rebels aim to start oil exports
- Libyan rebels may be able to profit from oil sales – FT- Libyan rebels aim to revive oil exports – NY Times
- Qatar provides fuel lifeline for rebel-held towns – FT
- Radioactive flood in Japanese reactor tunnels – FT
- Japanese soil contains plutonium, say officials – The Guardian
- Tepco chief spent week secluded in office – FT
- Gas ship rates may rise 67% as Japan replaces nuclear – Bloomberg
- Standard Life tells BP to drop Rosneft swap – The Telegraph
- Bob Dudley risks being left out in the cold – The Telegraph
- Chinese to drive energy M&A – FT
- China industry ordered to cut CO2 intensity by 18% – Reuters
- Private investment in clean energy plunges – FT
- Berlin shifts stance on nuclear power – FT
- British nuclear industry ‘needs overhaul’ – The Guardian
- EDF asks Edison CEO to step down – WSJ
- Lamprell surges on need for robust rigs – FT
- Business big shot: Nigel McCue of Lamprell – The Times
- Bowleven looks to Cameroon prospects – FT
- BG to export oil from Brazil – Bloomberg
- Delta Air Lines shifts fuel hedges out of US benchmark – FT
- European Commission targets cut in transport emissions – Argus
Libya, a last hurrah for the west
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)