NATO attack on Libyan rebel tanks: did they forget to ask?

Quote:

---

They Forgot To Ask


Daniel Larison April 8th, 2011

NATO acknowledged Friday that its airstrikes had hit rebels using tanks to fight government forces in eastern Libya, saying no one told them the rebels used tanks.


British Rear Adm. Russell Harding, the deputy commander of the NATO operation, said in the past, only forces loyal to Libyan strongman Moammar Gadhafi had used heavy armored vehicles. ~Seattle Post-Intelligencer (AP)

Mistakes are unavoidable in any military effort, and friendly-fire incidents take place even within well-organized armies, and NATO is being asked to do the impossible in Libya. Granting all of that, this does stand out as an impressive failure to acquire the most basic information about the forces that NATO is trying to support. It’s also hard to believe the specific claim that NATO officials didn’t know this. No one told them? Didn’t anyone attempt to find out?



There have been reliable reports that the rebels possessed tanks circulating for weeks. Granted, those reports tended to be dismissive and pointed out that the rebels didn’t know how to use them very well or at all, but that they had tanks was something that informed observers knew about the rebels. The Los Angeles Times published this report nine days ago:

At an army base in Benghazi, Yahya Abdulsalam, a rebel guard, said nine captured government T-72 Soviet-made tanks inside the garrison could not be operated because rebels didn’t know how to turn on the engines.


“We’re trying to find some soldiers who know how to use these tanks, but the only tanks they know are the older ones,” Abdulsalam said.

If someone closely following the news out of Libya could be aware of this, how is it that the people in charge of running the Libyan war weren’t?
Update: Mark Thompson is being a bit too generous in his assessment:

This was bound to happen: U.S. military officials, at least, have gone out of their way to say they are not in contact with the rebels, so how would NATO know when the rebels snared some of Gaddafi’s tanks?

Reading news accounts might have helped.

---

http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2011...forgot-to-ask/

Why are we still there?

Because we need to kill libyans in order to prevent libyans from getting killed. Or something like that. Whatever it is, it's very warm and fuzzy. We should all feel good about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by coyotes_geek

Because we need to kill libyans in order to prevent libyans from getting killed. Or something like that. Whatever it is, it's very warm and fuzzy. We should all feel good about it.

---

Are they the wrong type of Arabs for Obama or something?

There are no vital US interests at play, and Libya presents no threat to us. They're another crappy little country we can throw against the wall just to show the rest of world we can do it, and are still willing to do it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

There are no vital US interests at play, and Libya presents no threat to us. They're another crappy little country we can throw against the wall just to show the rest of world we can do it, and are still willing to do it.

---

Reminds me of the pathetic kids that like to hang cats.

Tell it to Iraq.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Tell it to Iraq.

---

That was completely different and you know it. Please don't stoop to such levels.

Not so different. Iraq didn't attack us and posed no threat.

No vital US interests were at play.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Not so different. Iraq didn't attack us and posed no threat.

---

We've been through this many a time over the years. Hindsight is 20/20. Stop being an ass about it and recall that there was solid congressional support for our actions there.

My last word on this issue in this thread. If you have the need to hash this out more, revive the appropriate thread or start a new one. This one is about Libya.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wild Cobra

That was completely different and you know it. Please don't stoop to such levels.

---

The only different one would be Afghanistan (as in, we actually had a reason to go in there)... Libya and Iraq have a large amount of similarities.

Kinetic military action is hell!!!

I never denied there was Congressional support for Iraq, only suggested it is a bullshit intervention, like Libya.

I'm glad Syria isn't all discombobulated like Libya.

Has anyone seen the NATO mission statement for this operation yet?

For the past 2 weeks the news has been reporting, and even showing the rebels confiscating tanks and repairing them. Funny and sad that the general public knows more then what the Nato intelligence does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

Kinetic military action is hell!!!

---

:lmao

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viva Las Espuelas

I'm glad Syria isn't all discombobulated like Libya.

---

Much bigger fish to fry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...DxC_story.html

I'm surprised he didn't go after Jordan.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Winehole23

Much bigger fish to fry:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinio...DxC_story.html

---

Yeah. Iraq and Egypt. Sunni and Shiite. Nothing to worry about there.

Then there's Turkey cuddling up to Iran. Nothing to worry about there.

Maybe we should remake the whole region in our image. It's working out great in Iraq and Afghanistan, right?

Why are they bombing GROUND targets in a no FLY zone?

What Nisbet referred to as the seventy-five year war back in 1988 is now closing in on a full century of this country being on a permanent war footing (with, yes, occasional reductions).

There's no end in sight to this madness.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 4>0rings

Why are they bombing GROUND targets in a no FLY zone?

---

What's up with that?

http://files.libertyfund.org/pll/quotes/255.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nisbet

It is tempting in this year of the bicentennial of the Constitution to speculate on the probable reactions of the Framers to the product of their labors and aspirations as it stands today in the world two full centuries after its inception. Such speculation need not be altogether fanciful. Some constitutional lawyers speak of recovering the “original intent” of the Framers, a not impossible feat given the clarity of the document itself and the abundance of ancillary sources of the Framers’ views on government. If original intent can be reasonably retrieved after two hundred years, why not probable reaction to the present age in America?

What would the Framers be most struck by in America today? I mean after they had recovered from the shock of seeing clean, strong, white teeth instead of decayed yellow stumps in the mouths of their descendants; after they had assimilated the fact of the astounding number of Americans who were neither crippled, disease-wasted, nor pockmarked from smallpox; and, of course, after they had taken rapt eyes off the high-speed vehicles on the streets? After these astonishments, what reactions might there be to the political and cultural scene?

Three aspects of the present age in America would surely draw their immediate, concerned, and perhaps incredulous attention.

First, the prominence of war in American life since 1914, amounting to a virtual Seventy-Five Years War, and with this the staggering size of the American military establishment since World War II. The Framers had relied on two broad oceans for the license to draft the most nonmilitary constitution imaginable.

Second, the Leviathan-like presence of the national government in the affairs of states, towns, and cities, and in the lives, cradle to grave, of individuals. The Framers had worked most diligently to prevent any future hypertrophy of the federal government.They had particularly disliked the sprawling bureaucracies of Europe in their day.

Third, the number of Americans who seem only loosely attached to groups and values such as kinship, community, and property, and whose lives are so plainly governed by the cash nexus.

In the pages following, I have enlarged upon these three aspects of the present scene in America.

---

Hard to argue with 2 & 3 as well.

It's technically a No Fly Zone Plus. Guess what the plus is?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by LnGrrrR

It's technically a No Fly Zone Plus. Guess what the plus is?

---

Plus whatever!!!