Changes

It was reported on February 24, 2011, an emergency meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Libya would take no action or make no recommendation to the UN [[General Assembly]] to remove Libya from holding its seat on the UN Human Rights Council.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref>

It was reported on February 24, 2011, an emergency meeting of the United Nations Human Rights Council on Libya would take no action or make no recommendation to the UN [[General Assembly]] to remove Libya from holding its seat on the UN Human Rights Council.<ref>http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/no-threat-seen-libya-s-seat-top-un-human</ref>

On March 17, 2011, a majority of the [[United Nations Security Council]] voted to pass UNSC Resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its [[British]] and [[Lebanese]] partners, allowing the use of force in Libya. [[Russia]] and [[China]] abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi to step aside and has given assistance to the anti-Gadaffi forces. However, Congressional leaders were not consulted prior to the committment of U.S. forces,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor did the Congress authorize the use of force in Libya.

On March 17, 2011, a majority of the [[United Nations Security Council]] voted to pass UNSC Resolution 1973 proposed by [[France]], along with its [[British]] and [[Lebanese]] partners, allowing the use of force in Libya. [[Russia]] and [[China]] abstained from the vote. The [[Obama administration]] called for Libyan dictator Moammar Gaddafi to step aside and has given assistance to the anti-Gadaffi forces. However, Congressional leaders were not consulted prior to the commitment of U.S. forces,<ref>http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/262921/boehner-obama-libya-many-other-members-house-representatives-are-troubled-robert-costa</ref> nor did the Congress authorize the use of force in Libya.

China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire. After hostilities began China evcuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref>

China, Libya's largest Asian oil customer, called for an immediate ceasefire. After hostilities began China evacuated over 36,000 of its energy and construction workers and shut down operations of Chinese companies with over $18.8 billion of Chinese investments in Libya.<ref>http://www.channelnewsasia.com/stories/eastasia/view/1119924/1/.html</ref>

Military and intelligence experts in France, Britian, and the United States warned about uncertainties but were overruled by political leaders. The end result was a set of decisions that focused on short term considerations and gambled on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate but, according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,

Military and intelligence experts in France, Britain, and the United States warned about uncertainties but were overruled by political leaders. The end result was a set of decisions that focused on short term considerations and gambled on the outcome. French, British, and US leaders did not fully coordinate but, according to Anthony Cordesman, it became clear,

{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Qaddafi out of power.}}

{{Cquote|they sought and got international cover from the UN by claiming a no fly zone could protect civilians when their real objective was to use force as a catalyst to drive Qaddafi out of power.}}

Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of rebels could win through sheer political momentum and could then be turned into a successful government. One month later it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel forces can only hang on with the present level of air support" provided by the United Nations.

Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama seem to have assumed that a largely unknown, divided, and fractured group of rebels could win through sheer political momentum and could then be turned into a successful government. One month later it was obvious a "weak, divided, poorly led, and badly equipped and supplied set of rebel forces can only hang on with the present level of air support" provided by the United Nations.

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to stop an assault by Gaddafi forces on Benghazi and the establishment of a no-fly zone in the country. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes had attacked armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand.  The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the knowledge of key allied militaries, including the [[United States]].<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

On March 19, two days after passage of UN Security Council Resolution 1973,<ref>http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=278685</ref> French President [[Nicolas Sarkozy]] convened an emergency meeting of allied and Arab leaders in [[Paris]] which endorsed the immediate deployment of military aircraft to stop an assault by Gaddafi forces on Benghazi and the establishment of a no-fly zone in the country. Before the end of the meeting, French fighter planes had attacked armored vehicles and tanks outside Benghazi. Some participants at the Paris meeting were critical of the French government both for insisting on convening the meeting before agreeing to endorse air strikes, and then for launching air strikes before the meeting was over.<ref>Allies Open Air Assault on Qaddafi’s Forces in Libya, ''New York Times'', March 19, 2011.</ref> French officials claim that meeting participants were informed of the operation beforehand.  The strikes had clearly been planned and coordinated with the knowledge of key allied militaries, including the [[United States]].<ref>Operation Odyssey Dawn (Libya): Background and Issues for Congress, ''Congressional Research Service'', March 30, 2011, p. 19 pd.</ref>

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reports Sarkozy has enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' writes Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy has used the crisis to propel France into a  Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States which has been abbrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,  

[[National Public Radio]] (NPR) reports Sarkozy has enjoyed a "burst of public support"<ref>http://wap.npr.org/story/134855539</ref> while the ''[[London Guardian]]'' writes Sarkozy's actions may save him from "electoral humiliation."<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/20/libya-crisis-nicolas-sarkozy-electoral</ref> Several analysts speculate Sarkozy has used the crisis to propel France into a  Superpower role, usurping the global leadership of the United States which has been abrogated by [[President Obama]].<ref>http://www.businessandpolitics.org/?p=4651</ref> Columnist Jim Hoagland of the ''[[Washington Post]]'' observes,  

{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

{{Cquote|France is a country that has a past being involved in world affairs, wanting to count in world affairs, and being willing to pay its way for defense forces and to use those forces abroad. So, France plays a natural role in that. At a time when governments are slashing defense spending and reducing troops, France still wants to occupy an important role in world affairs....the reason you're seeing France taking on such a much larger role is that other countries, including the United States, are not willing to do it anymore. And Sarkozy is trying to fill that vacuum.<ref>http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/world/jan-june11/france2_04-07.html</ref>}}

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons.  Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref>  The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

Under the [[War Powers Act]] of 1973 the U.S President has limited authority to use military force without Congressional authorization when there is an imminent [[national security]] threat, however President Obama made clear that he ordered the use of force for other reasons.  Members of Congress of both parties have expressed concern the President may have violated the law in doing so.<ref>http://rooney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=3190:rooney-resolution-president-should-obtain-congressional-authorization-or-end-military-campaign-in-libya-&catid=48:2011-press-releases</ref>  The War Powers Act specifically states that the President’s power to introduce forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities can only be exercised pursuant to (1) a declaration of war; (2) specific statutory authorization; or (3) a national emergency created by an attack on the United States or its forces. The War Powers Act requires the President in every possible instance to consult with Congress before introducing American Armed Forces into hostilities or imminent hostilities unless there has been a declaration of war or other specific Congressional authorization. None of these prerequisites have been met.

On March 21, 2011, President Obama announced U.S. military forces had commenced operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as givng him the authority to do so. The Charter of the [[United Nations]] however, in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that if a no-fly zone were imposed against a state that has not carried out an armed attack against its neighbors, that state may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone itself as an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",

On March 21, 2011, President Obama announced U.S. military forces had commenced operations in Libya two days earlier, on March 19, "to prevent a humanitarian catastrophe" and cited UN Resolutions as giving him the authority to do so. The Charter of the [[United Nations]] however, in Article 2(4), prohibits the “threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence” of a member state, and many observers have wondered whether the establishment of a no-fly zone would constitute a violation of this prohibition. The Congressional Research Services advised that if a no-fly zone were imposed against a state that has not carried out an armed attack against its neighbors, that state may consider the imposition of a no-fly zone itself as an “armed attack.” CRS warned that even if no-fly zone operations in a given state do not constitute an “armed attack",

{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

{{Cquote|that state, and other members of the international community, might consider them a violation of the prohibition of the “threat or use of force,” as well as of the customary duty of non-intervention in the affairs of other sovereign states.}}

===Mission creep===

===Mission creep===

UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi forces, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similiarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict  outcome." Cordesman notes,

UN Security Council Resolution 1973, passed in March 2011, does not authorise participating members to support the anti-Gaddafi forces, to defend armed groups, or to oust Gaddafi. Nor does it authorise a ground invasion or military occupation. Strategic analyst Anthony Cordesman notes the similarities between Libya and Iraq and the loose uncoordinated coalitions "failure to plan for the decisive and lasting use of force, failure to plan for the civil side of military operations and to support stability operations, and focus on short term goals without a realistic plan for a successful strategic and post-conflict  outcome." Cordesman notes,

{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to  drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}

{{Cquote|the lives and futures of some 6.6 million Libyans are at stake. The Franco-Anglo-American gamble now seems far too likely to fail at their expense. Moreover, it seems likely to  drag the other nations that support the operation into their failure -- along with part of the reputation of NATO and credibility of the UN.... gambling on Qaddafi caving in has created a far more serious humanitarian crisis for the Libyan people than would ever have occurred if the Coalition had acted decisively from the start ...The humanitarian cost of humanitarian restraint is all too clear: Hundreds of Libyan and foreign workers have been killed...hundreds of thousands lack jobs, security, and safe conditions of life....an enduring war of attrition will turn a minor humanitarian crisis into a major one ...This kind of operation cannot be “surgical’ – if “surgical” now means minimizing bloodshed regardless of whether the patient dies. Hard, and sometimes brutal, choices need to be made between limited civilian casualties and collateral damage during the decisive use of force and an open-ended war of attrition that will produce far higher cumulative civilian casualties and collateral damage.<ref>http://csis.org/publication/libya-will-farce-stay-us-and-france-and-britain</ref>}}

Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:

Cordesman notes mission creep and boots on the ground ultimately lead to [[nation building]]:

{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political  system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}

{{Cquote|France, Britain, and the US now have a special obligation to both finish what they started in military terms, and deal with the aftermath. A post-conflict Libya will need extensive help in building a workable political  system, in rebuilding the capability to govern, in both rebuilding the existing economy and correcting for decades of Qaddafi’s reckless and constantly shifting eccentricities.}}

On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,

On April 19, 2011, one month after Sarkozy, Cameron, and Obama asked the UN Security Council for authorization for a limited use of force, the UK ''[[Guardian (UK)|Guardian]]'' reported,

{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel forces have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizeable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

{{Cquote|Britain is now publicly doing what it expressly said it would not do when the no-fly intervention began: putting boots on the ground in Libya. France is taking similar action. Given that the rebel forces have convincingly demonstrated their inability to win on their own, given the sizable negatives for David Cameron and Nicolas Sarkozy of an open-ended, inconclusive conflict, and given Barack Obama's flat refusal to do any more, the question now is: how many more British and French boots will follow, sooner or later, in the advisers' fateful footsteps?....By encouraging and assisting rebel resistance, as [[George H. W. Bush|George Bush Snr]] did with the [[Shia]]s of southern [[Iraq]] in 1991, Britain and France risk worsening the plight of the Libyan civilians they are primarily pledged to defend. The UN and concerned aid agencies all agree the humanitarian situation is growing steadily worse, the longer the conflict continues. ..<ref>http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/19/libya-mission-military-advisory-team</ref>}}

== External links ==

== External links ==