Fact Checking?
CBS has an AP piece, Fact checking Obama’s Libya speech, that is supposedly going to lay out the “facts”.
I won’t quote because it is an AP piece and they are weird about quoting, but head down to the paragraph that contains “unique capabilities” [the quotes are in the piece] about two-thirds of the way down. Among these “unique capabilities” are tanker aircraft and AWACs.
I didn’t go any further. If AP doesn’t know that the only country in this coalition that doesn’t have tankers is Qatar, they don’t have the facts to check. The US KC-135s can’t actually refuel most of the coalition aircraft [or US Navy and Marine Corp aircraft], because the system used by US Air Force aircraft is different that the system used by everyone else.
Further, NATO alone has 17 E-3 Sentry AWACs to use in the operation, and doesn’t need the US labeled aircraft. Many of the individual nations have their own AWACs as well.
The US has finished the mission that was faster and more accurate because of specialized US-only equipment. When SEAD ended, so did the need for the US to lead. The Europeans could have done it without the US, but the US equipment made the job faster, easier, and safer. Besides, the US already had the GPS targeting coordinates for everything in Libya, so why re-invent the wheel?
The AP article mentioned the 110 Tomahawk cruise missiles that were launched into Libya, but is apparently unaware that a major chunk of those missiles were launched by vessels of the British Royal Navy. The US is not the only nation that uses Tomahawks.
Lt. General Bouchard was appointed by the NATO council, not the SHAFE Commander. He wasn’t an officer in the Supreme Headquarters for Allied Forces Europe, and was appointed specifically for this operation. The forces under his command do not all come from NATO members [Qatar, United Arab Emirates], so it isn’t clear that he reports to anyone other than the NATO council, which is in the process of creating a new entity that will include the representatives of the non-NATO countries.
The article just annoyed the hell out of me, as does most reporting on the military. The people who write this stuff haven’t bothered to research the subject and spread misinformation. This is not how it should be done. Accuracy is important, especially in democracies, so people can figure out what their government is doing.
6 comments
Shouldn’t be involved regardless.
Different question, Frederick, but things are not going smoothly. Apparently, from multiple sources, the “rebels” assumed that they now had air support, and pushed West. When they had to fall back after a counter-attack they began asking “Where’s Sarkozy?”
Now we have Clinton talking about the possibility of the “rebels” being supplied, which is not the mission that was agreed to. If they stick to the original mission of stopping the attacks on civilians, they might “win some points”, but if they take sides, there will be blowback.
but if they take sides, there will be blowback.
Geeee…. I really just cannot imagine the USA sticking it’s collective false nose in where it can do the most harm to everyone! 😆
My money would firmly be on blowback! If there was ever a *sure thing*, that would be it! 😛
Thank you Bryan! My first real laugh in over a week! 😆
As for your original post, yeah… I agree and understand. And I’m not even American! (Though I have served with US Military, and did have to study the way things work in the US , British, French, German, NATO and the now defunct Warsaw Pact Military groups.) 😉
Well, we can hope that the USA will keep it’s nose out… but history say’s otherwise. After all… it was the USA that put Qaddafi in power in the first place. Though even the USA finally was pushed to act in ’86 after Qaddafi sponsored gangs and began training suicide squads in the USA to attack US & British *interests* (and had stated he wanted to assassinate Reagan).*shrug*
A little history for those interested. 🙂
After Qaddafi’s coup in ’69, a plot called the “Hilton Assignment” was hatched by the creator of the British SAS (David Sterling) to quietly and secretly send Merc’s to release Political prisoners from a Tripoli prison to overthrow Qaddafi. But the USA warned off the British because they felt that Qaddafi was anti-Marxist enough to be a safe bet. (all in a tiny nutshell, and from memory, of course!)
I was a Human Rights Defender for Amnesty International for some time. While I was an active member, I learned that Amnesty had compiled a list of at least 25 people who were assassinated by Qaddafi between 1980-87 around the World for speaking out against him or Libya. He didn’t confine his insanity and murder to Libya, he was quite… liberal with it. 😉 But he was protected by the USA, even though he attempted to assassinate two dissidents on US soil (one was a student who was shot in Fort Collins. He survived but was blinded, or partially blinded.I think the other was about to be granted US citizenship). The USA always chooses such nice friends. *shrug*
These morons seem hellbent on seizing defeat from the jaws of victory. If they continue to “defend innocent civilians”, they get the moral high-ground and establish new rules for international intervention: no air, armor, or artillery attacks on civilians. It isn’t much, but it does level the pitch a bit.
These are rules that are hard to argue against in the UN, and it might affect the behavior of repressive regimes. It won’t stop governments from killing their citizens, but it will reduce the scope, and give the citizens a chance.
Of course, if it becomes the rule, then things get a bit worrisome for Israel and others, but it is about time something was done.
If they start shipping in weapons and ammo, all bets are off. It isn’t a mission to protect civilians, it is an intervention in a civil war. If the Libyans want it, they will fight for it. If they won’t fight, they didn’t want it bad enough.
What the US, UK, and France don’t seem to understand is that the natural choices to help the Libyans use a lot of new weapons are Hamas, Hezbollah, and al Qaeda. That is how you get around language and technical problems. The rebels aren’t an army, they are guerrillas, and they need to know how to act like guerrillas.
Blowback – it is surely coming.
Of course, if it becomes the rule, then things get a bit worrisome for Israel and others, but it is about time something was done.
Yep! And what’s the bet that that is one of the reasons behind the US reluctance to do things the UN way. (Well, that and general arrogance and lack of any real ethics).
And I agree that the rebels really need to have someone explain in some great detail how to win a guerrilla war, which is their only real hope.
If the rebels don’t do this part on their own, their rebellion won’t last. They have to “win” their freedom, to appreciate it. It won’t work if it is handed to them. They have to find their own leaders.
I would love a no-fly zone over Israel, as it would finally wake the Israelis up to the reality that they have to get along in their “neighborhood”.