Americas Secret Libya War

Aug 30, 2011 2:12 AM EDT

The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion on Libyas revolution, and secretly helped NATO with everything from munitions to surveillance aircraft. John Barry provides an exclusive look at Obamas emerging 'covert intervention' strategy.
The U.S. military has spent about $1 billion so far and played a far larger role in Libya than it has acknowledged, quietly implementing an emerging "covert intervention" strategy that the Obama administration hopes will let America fight small wars with a barely detectable footprint. Officially, President Obama handed the lead role of ousting Muammar Gaddafi to the European members of NATO. For this he was criticized by Washington war hawks who suggested that Europeans working with a ragtag team of Libyan rebels was a recipe for stalemate, not victory. But behind the scenes, the U.S. military played an indispensable role in the Libya campaign, deploying far more forces than the administration chose to advertise. And at NATO headquarters outside Brussels, the U.S. was intimately involved in all decisions about how the Libyan rebels should be supported as they rolled up control of cities and oil refineries and marched toward the capital, Tripoli. The Libya campaign was a unique international effort: 15 European nations working with the U.S. and three Arab nations. The air offensive was launched from 29 airbases in six European countries. But only six European nations joined with the U.S. and Canada to fly strikes against Gaddafis forces. The scale of the unpublicized U.S. role affirms hawks arguments: a divided NATO simply couldnt have waged the war it did without extensive American help. What the hawks underestimated was the U.S. ability to operate without publicityin military lingo, beneath the radar. According to two senior NATO officials, one American and the other European, these were the critical U.S. contributions during the six-month military campaign: An international naval force gathered off Libya. To lower the U.S. profile, the administration elected not to send a supercarrier. Even so, the dozen U.S. warships on station were the biggest contingent in this armada. In the opening hours of the campaign, an American submarine, the USS Florida, launched 100 cruise missiles against Libyan air defenses, crucially opening an entry corridor for the airstrikes that followed. U.S. tanker aircraft refueled European aircraft on the great majority of missions against Gaddafis forces. The Europeans have tanker aircraft, but not enough to support a 24/7 air

offensive averaging, by NATO count, around 100 missions a day, some 50 of them strike sorties. The U.S. flew 30 of the 40 tankers. When the Europeans ran low on precision-attack munitions, the U.S. quietly resupplied them. (That explains why European air forces flying F-16sthose of Norway, Denmark, Belgiumcarried out a disproportionate share of the strikes in the early phase of the campaign. The U.S. had stocks of the munitions to resupply them. When Britain and France, which fly European-built strike aircraft, also ran short, they couldnt use U.S.made bombs until they had made hurried modifications to their aircraft.)

Related

Bernard-Henri Lvy: Victorious Return to Libya

To target Gaddafis military, NATO largely relied on U.S. JSTARS surveillance aircraft, which, flying offshore, could track the movements of rival forces. When more detailed targeting information was neededas in the battles for Misrata and other towns defended by Gaddafis troopsthe U.S. flew Predator drones to relay a block-by-block picture. U.S. Air Force targeting specialists were in NATOs Naples operational headquarters throughout the campaign. They oversaw the preparing of target folders for the strikes in Tripoli against Gaddafis compound and the headquarters of his military and intelligence services. (Organizing precision strikes by high-speed jets is not a task for novices. The attack routes over Tripoli and the release times of bombs had to be precisely calibrated so munitions released even a second late by a strike aircraft would have the best chance of avoiding civilian homes.) What seems to be evolving is a new American way of war. U.S. AWACS aircraft, high over the Mediterranean, handled much of the battlemanagement task, acting as air-traffic controllers on most of the strike missions. Again, the Europeans have AWACS, but not enough crews to handle an all-hours campaign lasting months. Eavesdropping by U.S. intelligencesome by aircraft, some by a listening post quietly established just outside Libyagave NATO unparalleled knowledge of what Gaddafis military planned. All this was crucial in supporting the European effort. But U.S. involvement went way beyond that. In all, the U.S. had flown by late August more than 5,300 missions, by Pentagon count. More than 1,200 of these were strike sorties against Libyan targets. http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/08/30/america-s-secret-libya-war-u-s-spent1-billion-on-covert-ops-helping-nato.html

Obama Cites Limits of U.S. Role in Libya

By HELENE COOPER Published: March 28, 2011

WASHINGTON President Obama defended the American-led military assault in Libya on Monday, saying it was in the national interest of the United States to stop a potential massacre that would have stained the conscience of the world. In his first major address since ordering American airstrikes on the forces and artillery of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi nine days ago, Mr. Obama emphasized that the United States's role in the assault would be limited, but said that America had the responsibility and the international backing to stop what he characterized as a looming genocide in the Libyan city of Benghazi. I refused to wait for the images of slaughter and mass graves before taking action, Mr. Obama said. At the same time, he said, directing American troops to forcibly remove Colonel Qaddafi from power would be a step too far, and would splinter the international coalition that has moved against the Libyan government. To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq, Mr. Obama said, adding that 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. Speaking in the early evening from the National Defense University in Washington, Mr. Obama said he had made good on his promise to limit American military involvement against Colonel Qaddafis forces he did not use the word war to describe the action and he laid out a more general philosophy for the use of force. But while Mr. Obama described a narrower role for the United States in a NATO-led operation in Libya, the American military has been carrying out an expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan Army to turn against Colonel Qaddafi. The president said he was willing to act unilaterally to defend the nation and its core interests. But in other cases, he said, when the safety of Americans is not directly threatened but where action can be justified in the case of genocide, humanitarian relief, regional security or economic interests the United States should not act alone. His statements amounted both to a rationale for multilateralism and another critique of what he has all along characterized as the excessively unilateral tendencies of the administration of George W. Bush.

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act but the burden of action should not be Americas alone, Mr. Obama said. 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. Mr. Obama never mentioned many of the other nations going through upheaval across the Arab world, including Yemen, Syria and Bahrain, but left little doubt that his decision to send the United States military into action in Libya was the product of a confluence of particular circumstances and opportunities. He did not say how the intervention in Libya would end, but said the United States and its allies would seek to drive Colonel Qaddafi from power by means other than military force if necessary. Speaking for 28 minutes, Mr. Obama addressed a number of audiences. To the American public, he tried to offer reassurance that the United States was not getting involved in another open-ended commitment in a place that few Americans had spent much time thinking about. To the democracy protesters across the Middle East, he vowed that the United States would stand by them, even as he said that progress will be uneven, and change will come differently in different countries, a partial acknowledgment that complex relations between the United States and different Arab countries may make for different American responses in different countries. The United States will not be able to dictate the pace and scope of this change, Mr. Obama said. But, he added, 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 against ones own citizens; 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. The presidents remarks were timed to coincide with the formal handover of control over the Libya campaign to NATO, scheduled for Wednesday. But in the wake of criticism from Congressional representatives from both sides of the aisle that Mr. Obama overstepped his authority in ordering the strikes without first getting Congressional approval and the return of lawmakers to Washington after their spring recess Mr. Obama had another audience: Congress. Mr. Obama said that he authorized the military action only after consulting the bipartisan leadership of Congress, which White House officials have maintained is sufficient for what they have described as a limited military campaign. Whether his comments will do much to calm the criticism on Capitol Hill remains unclear. Some liberals remain unsettled by the fact of another war in a Muslim country,

initiated by a Democratic president who first came to national prominence as an opponent of the Iraq war, even as others backed the use of force to avert a potential massacre. Some Republicans continued to criticize Mr. Obama for moving too slowly, while another strain of conservative thought argued that the intervention was overreach, a military action without a compelling national interest. Since the allied military campaign began in Libya, President Obamas seeming uncertainty about the parameters and details of our engagement has only inspired a similar uncertainty among the American people, Representative Tom Price, Republican of Georgia, said in a statement after the speech. The presidents speech this evening offered very little to diminish those concerns. From the start, Mr. Obama has been caught between criticism that he did not do enough and that he had done too much. He continued to try to explain some seeming contradictions on Monday evening, including that while the United States wants Colonel Qaddafi out, it would not make his departure a goal of the military action. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton, he said, will attend a meeting in London on Tuesday where the international community will try to come up with a separate plan to pressure Colonel Qaddafi to leave. I know that some Americans continue to have questions about our efforts in Libya, Mr. Obama acknowledged. Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous. But, he said, if we try to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers to our men and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs and our share of the responsibility for what comes next. Aaron David Miller, a State Department Middle East peace negotiator during the Clinton administration, said Mr. Obama described a doctrine that, in essence, can be boiled to this: If we can, if theres a moral case, if we have allies, and if we can transition out and not get stuck, well move to help. The Obama doctrine is the hedge your bets and make sure you have a way out doctrine. He learned from Afghanistan and Iraq. White House officials said the American strikes in Libya did not set a precedent for military action in other Middle East trouble spots. Obviously there are certain aspirations that are being voiced by each of these movements, but theres no question that each of them is unique, Deputy National Security Adviser Denis McDonough said on Monday. We dont get very hung up on this question of precedent. But the question of precedent is one that Mr. Obama is clearly still grappling with. 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, he said.

But, his conclusion was ambiguous at best: 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. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/29/world/africa/29prexy.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

U.S. stresses limits to military role in Libya

By David Morgan WASHINGTON | Sun Mar 20, 2011 6:48pm EDT Gates, speaking as he flew to Russia, said the U.S. will not have a "preeminent role" in the coalition that will maintain a no-fly zone over Libya, and expected to turn over "primary responsibility" for the mission to others within days.

Britain or France could take charge of the air operation, or NATO could lead, if sensitivities among the Arab League over working under the Western alliance leadership were assuaged. Gates spoke amid growing concern among U.S. politicians over the scope and nature of the Libya mission and after an acknowledgement from the top U.S. military officer that the assault on Gaddafi's forces could lead to an impasse. The United States says the U.N.-endorsed intervention is aimed at forcing Gaddafi's troops into a ceasefire and ending attacks on civilians who launched an uprising last month. President Barack Obama has called in recent weeks for Gaddafi to step down but U.S. officials have emphasized that is not the goal of the United Nations authorized attacks on Libya. The United States is eager to avoid similarities to the 2003 invasion of Iraq and ouster of President Saddam Hussein. Forces loyal to Gaddafi, who has ruled Libya for 41 years, had been taking back large swathes of territory from rebels until the air attacks, which may give the rebels the chance to regroup. Military analysts say it is unclear if they can. "I think this is basically going to have to be resolved by the Libyans themselves," said Gates. "Whether or not there is additional outside help for the rebels remains to be seen."

Admiral Mike Mullen, chairman of the U.S. military's Joint Chiefs of Staff, told the CBS program "Face the Nation" the air mission in the North African country has a clear, limited scope. But Mullen said the outcome of military action in Libya was "very uncertain." Asked if it could end in a stalemate with Gaddafi, Mullen replied: "I don't think that's for me to answer. Certainly, I recognize that's a possibility." Gates said the United States wanted Libya to remain a unified country, saying partition into a rebel-held east and Gaddafi-controlled west "would be a real formula for enduring instability." The aerial assault by U.S., French and British planes has halted an advance by Gaddafi's armored units on the rebel-held city of Benghazi and attacks on air defenses and radar sites have allowed the ad-hoc Western coalition to establish "a consistent and persistent" air presence over Libya, enforcing a no-fly zone, a U.S. official said. Vice Admiral Bill Gortney, director of the U.S. military's Joint Staff, told reporters there had been no new Libyan air activity or radar emissions and had been a significant decrease in Libyan air surveillance since strikes began Saturday. Benghazi was not yet free from threat, said Gortney, but Gaddafi's forces in the area were in "significant distress" and "suffering from isolation and confusion" following air assaults on their positions. PRESSING FOR CLARITY Senior Republicans pressed U.S. President Barack Obama to give a clear rationale for the Libya mission, reflecting concern that U.S. forces could get bogged down in a longrunning, costly operation that lacks defined goals. "The administration has a responsibility to define for the American people, the Congress and our troops, what the mission in Libya is," House of Representatives Speaker John Boehner, the top Republican in Congress, said in a statement. "I am concerned that the use of military force in the absence of clear political objectives for our country risks entrenching the United States in a humanitarian mission whose scope and duration are not known," added Republican Representative Howard McKeon, chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. Mullen insisted Western military operations are narrowly focused on protecting civilians and aiding humanitarian efforts. Underlining the cautious U.S. approach, Gortney said the coalition was not targeting Gaddafi himself, and that the U.S. would hand over command of the operation to coalition forces within days. He did not specify who would take charge.

The U.S. role would then shift to support operations including intelligence, signal jamming, aerial refueling and humanitarian efforts. The United States is now fighting in three conflicts -- Iraq, Afghanistan and Libya -while struggling under a huge budget deficit and national debt. The Pentagon also has plans to cut $78 billion in defense spending over five years. France sent an aircraft carrier toward Libya and its planes were over the country again Sunday, defense officials said. Britain said its planes had targeted Libya's air defenses mainly around the capital Tripoli. U.S. Navy Growlers provided electronic support while AV-8B Harriers from the 26th Marine Expeditionary Unit conducted air strikes against Gaddafi's ground forces and air defenses. Missile strikes launched by the United States and Britain as part of a bid to cripple Libyan air defenses hit 20 of 22 targets, the U.S. military said. The military also said three U.S. stealth bombers took part in airstrikes early Sunday. (Additional reporting by Mark Hosenball, Missy Ryan, Vicki Allen and Caren Bohan; Writing by Alistair Bell and Sean Maguire) http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/20/us-libya-usa-idUSTRE72A6EC20110320