Odyssey Dawn

The US has also launched cruise missiles from ships based in the Mediterrannean Sea, and has taken the lead in military operations during the first phase, Kimberly Halkett, Al Jazeera's correspondent in Washington DC reported. (source)

In the first phase of the operation, named "Odyssey Dawn", the US will target Libyan Integrated Missile Defence Systems, mainly near Tripoli and Misurata, officials said. (source as above)

None of this makes any sense, except as an emotional response to an emergency. I understand the emotions, and sympathize with the impulse to help. But I can think of no worse basis for committing a country to war than such emotional and moral anxiety. One fears this is Bill Clinton's attempt to assuage his conscience over Rwanda, rather than Obama's judicious attempt to navigate the Arab 1848. And as Obama said things like "Qaddafi has a choice," did you not hear echoes of Bush and Saddam?

At least Bush argued that Saddam posed a threat to the US. No one can seriously argue that Qaddafi poses such a threat. To launch a war on these grounds is to set a precedent that would require a kind of global power and reach that not even the most righteous neocons have pushed for.

abbazappa said:
From The Atlantic

This action has nothing to do with "national security" and it further illustrates the need to have Congressional approval before taking military action instead of giving that power to the President. I suppose people should start taking down the bumper stickers that has the "O" in Obama be a peace symbol.

In a briefing Saturday afternoon, Vice Adm. William Gortney told reporters that about 110 Tomahawk missiles, fired from American warships and submarines and one British submarine struck 20 air-defense targets around Tripoli, the capital, and the western city of Misurata. He said the strikes were against longer-range air defense missiles as well as early warning radar sites and main command-and-control communication centers. (source)

IDGAS said:

DevilsReject said:

shit!

They fired 110 missiles and hit 20 targets?

HoneyBadger said:

and how many civilians did they hit?

HoneyBadger said:

and how many civilians did they hit?

MrCrisp said: More than one missile can hit a single target. Still, hopefully none.

IDGAS said:

I thought Tomahawk missiles were single payload single target? Live and learn

HoneyBadger said:

I am aware of this, but since when do our missles always hit the intended target, and when is our intended target always what our intelligence suggests it is?

IDGAS said:

I thought Tomahawk missiles were single payload single target? Live and learn

DevilsReject said:

They are, they more than likely fired 4-5 missiles at each target. The warhead they're using is probably conventional explosives, requiring more than one missile to render "Air Defense Targets" useless.

I *think* the Libyan Military is still using Cold War equipment, especially when it comes to Radar encampments, which means the big-ass antenna you see at ground surface is one minor part of the encampment, there is a bunch of other stuff underground. They can be very small underground or they can actually range the size of a football field, they can also be multiple levels. It depends.

To me it sounds like they're probably hammering the shit out of the entire area to destroy everything and render it completely useless, so it doesn't come back up.. But that is my uneducated assumption.

I hope civilian casualties are low, if not none at all. I am still pretty torn on what the United States should have done anyhow.

IDGAS said:

I misread MrCrisp's post as one missile can hit more than one target. I need new glasses and a brain reboot

HoneyBadger said:
and how many civilians did they hit?

BDeyeD said:
God this makes me nervous. I'm hoping the civilians aren't the ones getting obliterated.

AlienSheep said:
...I'm flabbergasted at how anyone could be against the objectives of this operation...

MrCrisp said:

Even the anti-Gaddafi Libyans?



Look, while you may not understand the resistance to military intervention, don't be surprised that people are actually worried that it may cause more harm then good. Nobody's against the removal of Gaddafi and the ensured safety of Libyans, we're just worried that a more direct use of force can endanger more lives than necessary.

AlienSheep said:

I am well aware of such sentiment from the anti-Gaddafi Libyans, but when was that picture taken? Before the blood baths and outward cries for someone to help them? It's a complex situation and military might is a last resort, but we are clearly at that point. What are these other options that you speak of that will keep Gaddafi's forces from entering Benghazi and killing everyone?

This operation is not about boots on the ground, but answering the call for help in order to give the Opposition a fighting chance to win their war for peace and freedom.

Plus, why are we intervening here, but not in places like Egypt, Bahrain, Syria, the Ivory Coast, Sudan, etc? Why are we embarking on another extraordinarily expensive military operation? Why are we the world police?

motorfirebox said:
Yeah. One can approve of the objectives of the operation and still be against undertaking the operation.

AlienSheep said:

This operation is not about boots on the ground, but answering the call for help in order to give the Opposition a fighting chance to win their war for peace and freedom.

darksphere said:

I think this is the most important part to remember.

Also Tuesday, the U.S. ordered two warships and 1200 Marines to the waters off of Libya, but a top Obama administration official stopped short of saying the forces would intervene in the clashes that have consumed the country following anti-Gadhafi protests here in recent weeks.

At a Pentagon briefing, Defense Secretary Robert Gates announced he had ordered to the Mediterranean the USS Ponce and the USS Kearsarge, an amphibious-assault ship that typically carries infantrymen and troop-transport helicopters. Those ships currently have 800 marines, in addition to 400 U.S.-based Marines who will be airlifted to meet the ships. He said the ships would be ready to perform evacuations and humanitarian relief.

Mr. Gates wouldn't specify the other military options he has offered President Barack Obama. But he sounded a note of caution about sending U.S. assets into Libya. "We have to think about the use of the U.S. military in another country in the Middle East," Mr. Gates said. "We are sensitive about all these things."