Members of the NATO alliance have sternly warned the rebels in Libya not to attack civilians as they push against the government of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi, according to senior military and government officials.
As NATO takes over control of airstrikes in Libya, and the Obama administration considers new steps to tip the balance of power there, the coalition has told the rebels that if they endanger civilians, they will not be shielded from possible bombardment by NATO planes and missiles, just as the government’s forces have been punished.
“We’ve been conveying a message to the rebels that we will be compelled to defend civilians, whether pro-Qaddafi or pro-opposition,” said a senior Obama administration official. “We are working very hard behind the scenes with the rebels so we don’t confront a situation where we face a decision to strike the rebels to defend civilians.”
The warnings, and intense consultations within the NATO-led coalition over its rules for attacking anyone who endangers innocent civilians, come at a time when the civil war in Libya is becoming ever more chaotic, and the battle lines ever less distinct. They raise a fundamental question that the military is now grappling with: who in Libya is a civilian?
Meanwhile, fresh intelligence this week showed that Libyan government forces were supplying assault rifles to civilians in the town of Surt, which is populated largely by Qaddafi loyalists. These civilian Qaddafi sympathizers were seen chasing rebel forces in nonmilitary vehicles like sedans and trucks, accompanied by Libyan troops, according to American military officers.
today: nato threatens to bomb the rebels
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?_r=3&src=twrhp
OMFG. This is a can of worms to the Nth Degree.
I'll go one further...I kind of assumed this was already going on -- don't we want eyes on the ground "gathering intelligence on targets for airstrikes"? Don't we want to take reasonable measures to ensure we're not bombing aspirin factories or otherwise killing civilians?
today: nato threatens to bomb the rebels
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?_r=3&src=twrhp
Then why aren't we occupying half the world? what about Darfur, North Korea, numerous Middle Eastern countries, and many South East Asian countries? We can't liberal the entire world, and certain conflicts we should not meddle in. We can't just start a war, oust an oppressive leader, and assume that peace and freedom will follow.
In some cases it's worth the risk.
North Korea is one of those.
Then why aren't we occupying half the world? what about Darfur, North Korea, numerous Middle Eastern countries, and many South East Asian countries? We can't liberal the entire world, and certain conflicts we should not meddle in. We can't just start a war, oust an oppressive leader, and assume that peace and freedom will follow.
I'm more pissed that this got leaked while operations are presumable still going on.
today: nato threatens to bomb the rebels
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/01/world/africa/01civilians.html?_r=3&src=twrhp
BENGHAZI, Libya (AP) — A plan to sell rebel-held oil to buy weapons and other supplies has been reached with Qatar, a rebel official said Friday, in another sign of deepening aid for Libya's opposition by the wealthy Gulf state after sending warplanes to help confront Moammar Gadhafi's forces.
It was not immediately clear when the possible oil sales could begin or how the arms would reach the rebel factions, but any potential revenue stream would be a significant lifeline for the militias and military defectors battling Gadhafi's superior forces.
Rebel units were pushed back about 100 miles (160 kilometers) this week along the Mediterranean coast, but still held parts of oil-rich eastern Libya and the key city of Benghazi. In recent clashes, rebels displayed more firepower including mortars and rockets, but remain significantly outgunned.
We should all just hope that it never has to come to that, but if the choice is between defending innocents and having allies in Libya, I'd have to argue in favor of defending innocents.
I think we're being smart in not training an insurgency, I mean look at what happened when we did that in Afghanistan.
I'm sure there's a declaration of war somewhere in the stack of papers, right?No defence.
America as usual.
**** Obama.
I'm sure there's a declaration of war somewhere in the stack of papers, right?
I'm not interested in your partisan Hackery today American.
Must not be so "secret" if we're chatting about it. Probably more disinformation.
It was secret until it was leaked to the press.
There are much fewer secrets today. We all need to get used to that, and act accordingly.
I kind of assumed this was already going on -- don't we want eyes on the ground "gathering intelligence on targets for airstrikes"? Don't we want to take reasonable measures to ensure we're not bombing aspirin factories or otherwise killing civilians?
Look, Obama couldn't wait to tell us, "No boots on the ground." Why did he even say it? Of course we knew there'd be boots on the ground -for all the reasons you mention. So why lie?? He could have just said.....nothing.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?