Cameron: military action not out of the question in Libya
James Forsyth 4:57pm
The government’s game of catch-up on Libya continues apace. David Cameron came to
the Commons to update the House on the current situation. His main message was now that we have the vast majority of our citizens out, we can have a policy. Indeed, the government is today openly
admitting that it was hamstrung last week by the continuing presence of a large number of British nationals in Tripoli.
Cameron told the House that ‘we do not in any way rule out the use of military assets’; a dramatic shift from the tone of his entourage on last week’s trip. At the moment, the main military option on the table seems to be a no-fly zone and Cameron said he had asked the MoD and the chief of the defence staff to examine how this could be done. Considering how difficult it would be to get a no fly zone through the UN, the easiest thing legally would be for the African Union to order one and ask for Nato help in enforcing it. But that is far from certain to happen.
The government at the moment is refusing to be drawn on whether it might recognise the transitional council that has set itself up in the east of the country. But, I understand, the evacuations from Benghazi have been done in consultation with the rebel forces there.
Revealing, Cameron’s list today of the four basic rights did not include the right to free elections. I am told that the Prime Minister left elections off the list because he thinks that ‘naïve neo-cons’ put too much emphasis on elections.
One other notable thing about today’s statement was David Miliband’s presence in the chamber; he normally avoids being there when his brother is speaking. After bobbing up and down a couple of times, he was called by the speaker and asked a rather long-winded question on Israel-Palestine.
Previous
david
February 28th, 2011 5:05pm Report this commentWhy does everything in the middle east have to hang on Isreal- Paletine issue.
Commentator
February 28th, 2011 5:21pm Report this commentI'm sure that aircraft carrier with no aircraft will be a great help in enforcing a no fly zone as Dave plays the gunboat diplomat. He did of course have a gap year job with Jardine Matheson.
Richard Calhoun
February 28th, 2011 5:26pm Report this commentLeave it to the African Union, if we have our people out we should keep out of it.
We have no money!!!
denis cooper
February 28th, 2011 5:48pm Report this commentCameron moots possible military action in Libya, by him and whose army? Because as far as I can see there's not a lot that the run-down and otherwise occupied British army could do in Libya or anywhere else.
TrevorsDen
February 28th, 2011 5:50pm Report this commentHow is the govt playing catch-up?
Dom you get your orders about what to write directly from the Barclay Bros?
I would suggest the govt are dealing with events as they unfold.
How is 'playing catch-up' compatible with sending SAS units into Libya virtually a week ago?
What I see are sour faced journalists unwilling to recognise their mistakes.
TrevorsDen
February 28th, 2011 5:51pm Report this commentBTW - its not clear that anything is flying in Libya anyway.
TrevorsDen
February 28th, 2011 5:54pm Report this commentI guess we will be dragged in, but why must military action be by us?
France Italy Greece and Turkey are on the doorstep, though I would have thought they would want to keep the latter 2 apart.
cuffleyburgers
February 28th, 2011 5:56pm Report this commentI presume the "no fly" bit refers to us?
DZ
February 28th, 2011 6:03pm Report this commentAm I alone in feeling that the hue and cry after Ghaddafi is ultimately distasteful? To me it merely shows the appalling double standards of diplomacy in the past: we chose to put up with his excesses whilst it suited us, but when he is down we give him a joyful kicking.
The guts were not there at the right time. It shows.
Norman Dee
February 28th, 2011 6:09pm Report this commentIf the action is now restricted, as we are led to believe, just in the Tripoli area, what military action can we take ?. There's no way anyone with a grain of sense is going to send ground forces to help take Tripoli, ther's nothing that could be bombed that surely can have a great effect on the fighting, and a no fly zone for what? he doesn't appear to have anything other than the kite he is flying in his mind
Commentator
February 28th, 2011 6:12pm Report this commentMaybe Dave should send his bag carrier, TrevorsDen, to bore Ghaddafi into submission.
Fatbloke on tour
February 28th, 2011 6:25pm Report this commentFailed Blogger @ 5.50, 5.51 ...
Are you on a bonus?
How many pro Dave posts do you need to do before you get free ticket to his bunker?
Finally how are you getting on with your homework -
What is the difference between a Type 22 frigate and a T42 destroyer?
What one is getting chopped after its last little Med cruise and what one is being replaced by a T45 destroyer?
John Montague
February 28th, 2011 6:33pm Report this commentOh, so now they've got their peeps out, the yanks have changed their minds and told the EU to switch track too. Since nowadays the Frogs are willing to toe the US line too, we have to jump in fast, otherwise MummyHils won't love us anymore. Awwwww.
BTW Trev, there has been some bombing ... only munitions dumps so far though.
The Oncoming Storm
February 28th, 2011 6:43pm Report this commentWhy would we even need to send an aircraft carrier, if one was available, when have have RAF Akrotiri, a sovereign base within range that could be used to support operations?
ChrisH
February 28th, 2011 6:47pm Report this comment@Commentator - As opposed to the existing carrier that does not fly a fighter, and hasn't for years? The Harrier flown today is not the same as the SeaHarrier and is in no way suitable for enforcing a no fly zone.
So we have been without the ability to do such a thing off a carrier for years.
EC
February 28th, 2011 7:03pm Report this comment"I guess we will be dragged in, but why must military action be by us?"
Goddammit mofo! Because it's our oil!
EC
February 28th, 2011 7:08pm Report this comment"I am told that the Prime Minister left elections off the list because he thinks that ‘naïve neo-cons’ put too much emphasis on elections."
Cue the post democratic EU as personified by Hermann van Rumpuy and Baroness Ashton.
TomTom
February 28th, 2011 7:23pm Report this commentThere we have it ! Mugabe is a British ally that cannot be toppled in Zimbabwe but Ghadaffi is an embarrassment to the British Government and should be removed.
Well King Fahd bin Abdul Aziz Al Saud you have been warned. If you want friends look to China and Russia
strapworld
February 28th, 2011 7:35pm Report this commentDZ, of course it is hypocritical. Think Zimbabwe, Think Mugabe.
Cameron is proving to be a bigger fool than I thought. No money so he gives billions to India. No navy to speak of, No planes to speak of. Our army stretched fighting in Afghanistan. Yet he talks of intervention in Libya. He truly is the heir to Blair.
Why is it that when people become Prime Minister they want to send young men and women to their deaths?
By the way where does Cameron get the mandate from to declare that he will not hold an IN or OUT referendum on the EU. That was neither in the Conservative Manifesto nor the coalition manifesto. We were though promised a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty. He obviously believes he can say whatever he likes now. A very rude awakening awaits this twit.
I was pleased to read Boris Johnson in the Telegraph today writing against the AV referendum and demanding a EU referendum. Now he would be a far better leader and Prime Minister than Cameron.
TrevorsDen becomes more proposterous by the day. Matron should really strap him down.
Commentator
February 28th, 2011 7:42pm Report this commentSo Chris, how is Cameron going to enforce his no fly zone....or is he just spouting while expecting the US to do the heavy lifting?
Diby Kouame
February 28th, 2011 7:50pm Report this comment- Has Lybia got weapons of mass destruction?
- Is Lybia's ruler mass murder will get the UK into a "liberation war"?
- Will Tony be consulted for advice?
lids
February 28th, 2011 8:19pm Report this commentFirst we had HMS Ark Royal, a superb carrier off of which we used to fly the equally suppers Sea Harrier, FA2 with an amazing radar, a hugely capable airframe. Then the government of the day decided to prematurely retire this superb aircraft. Not satisfied the new conservative lite government decided to prematurely retire Ark Rpyal as well. Two months later the whole of the North Coast of Africa and erupted in revolution. Luckilt another RN Vessel on its way home to be scrapped was diverted to Tripoli and took part in a hugely impressive rescue. A Hercules crews joined in the fun in the desert, top cover was provided by Americans as we don't have any Harriers at all as the last of them were prematurely retired as well. Now the Prime Minister threatens war on Tripoli, confident that his newly built aircraft carriers several years behind schedule will one day be able to steam up and down the Southern Med, with err, helicopters on board. All this after a highly effective STRATEGIC defence review, in which it was decided that we would have no nasty enemies for ten years.
You couldn't make it up.
barnacle bill
February 28th, 2011 9:00pm Report this commentAgain the coalition, sorry the Tory led coalition, are having to clean up the mess made by NuLabor.
Only this time it's not on our doorsteps but in North Africa.
Or did I just imagine Blair & Broon brown nosing Muammar Gaddafi?
Perry
February 28th, 2011 9:03pm Report this commentRemain calm. There is no need to worry that gb might do more than spout arrogant piffle.
Apart from desperate last minute small scale ops that rely on expertly trained groups, largely free of bureacratic interference, the threat of aircraftless carriers or their equivalent is but a joke.
Neil Turner
February 28th, 2011 9:05pm Report this commentMilitary action ?
Presume we'll be asking if we can borrow an Isle of Wight ferry from Red Funnel ?
vulture
February 28th, 2011 9:09pm Report this commentSo the heir to Blair wants to ape his master and start another Middle East war?
Hang on, hasn't Dave just destroyed our armed forces?
Dave the new defender of Tobruk? More the desert pox than the Desert fox, I fear.
TrevorsDen
February 28th, 2011 9:19pm Report this commentThere are differences between a T42 and a T22 Mr G - though not much in tonnage and we do not have many of each in service.
As ships are chopped to bits they are being replaced by newer ships, something which people should recognise - the problem is that whereas we were going to have 12 T45s we will only have 6; the other 6 were cancelled by Labour before they even got on the stocks.
So Labours legacy is to decommission ships and to cut the number of replacements and or delay the procurement of replacements. We might see a future frigate in 2020.
It remains to be seen how many of these future frigates we will build, but labours legacy of a £36 billion black hole in the defence budget will not help - and thats before the legacy of £150 billion deficit.
Governments tough when you have to balance the books - something labour does not normally worry about.
As long as you talk bollocks Mr Commentator, well someone has to point it out.
EC - do you regard China a 'democratic'? because I don't (it has an appalling human rights record) - yet people at Longbridge will be grateful for work in building Chinese cars and people in Goodwood will be grateful for selling them cars.
So who is going to tell them we should have nothing to do with China?
Dead Mans Chest
February 28th, 2011 10:06pm Report this commentlids + 1
Cameron declaring war on Gadaffi. Hilarious. Tragic. Can't tell whether my tears are of mirth or anger.
Simon Too
February 28th, 2011 10:27pm Report this commentNo-fly zone? David "we used to have some of those but the wings dropped off" Cameron is an expert on the subject!
ex-Tory Voter
February 28th, 2011 10:43pm Report this commentWhat does Dave think he's going to use to put his military action into operation? He's cut everything, left huge gaps and what bit's left is suffering from severe overstretch. He clearly wants an EU force, so let the EU sort it out. I'm sure Baroness Ashton of Up Holland can earn her corn for once and all those nice, shiny, posturing forces of the other 26 nations can show what they're made of.
Patricia Shaw
February 28th, 2011 11:04pm Report this commentSuch UK hypocrisy. Israel slaughters 15oo innocent Palestinian civilians and nobody says boo. Gadaffi shoos a bunch of demonstrator and the world comes down on him.
This is the kind of hypocrisy that lies behind the revolution in the midle east in the first place.
yank
February 28th, 2011 11:18pm Report this commentSo Dave is relieved he's no longer "hamstrung" ?
And now he's gonna charge off and sort all this?
What a maroon.
The Brit military is so hollowed out that it can't execute an independent operation against a Khadaffi rat in a cage, less than a stone's throw from the international water's edge.
And this buffoon Cameron is out running his mouth?
How do you all stand this, being openly and deliberately insulted like this? This guy is in effect calling you all stupid, as if you're all expected to just swallow whatever nonsense rolls out of his mouth.
Remember this day today, and all Cameron's bluster, when the boys are being frogmarched off
The FalklandsLas Malvinas, bound and blindfolded.Fatbloke on tour
February 28th, 2011 11:28pm Report this commentFailed Blogger @ 9.19
Have you stopped taking your medication?
Your post was not so much a detailed critique of RN ship design as a cry for help.
After all your bluster you are still no closer to the truth and still no closer to apologising for your untruths on the future of the RN escort fleet.
Just to recap you have on a number of occasions in the last few days tried to put forward the false premise that the HMS Cumberland and her three sisterships are not being unilaterally chopped as part of the 2010 SDSR process, but are in fact being replaced by the new T45 / Daring class AAW destroyers.
This as has been pointed out by others is complete tripe.
The T22s currently in the fleet, HMS Cumberland and her three sisterships are not being replaced.
The new T45 destroyers are replacing the T42 destroyers and have nothing to do with any other vessel type.
Consequently it would be god if you could put your hand up and admit that you got things a bit wrong.
Edward Sutherland
February 28th, 2011 11:35pm Report this commentBut, by jingo, we haven't got the ships, or the planes or the men.
Tankus
March 1st, 2011 12:07am Report this commentMad despot may have WMD's .+..mustard gas......(so say the BBC)
May be certifiable , western politicos think he is a nutjob
Might use them on the local population
Bunch of tribes jockeying for position
OIL
Minority brutally ruling the majority
Deserts
Muslims of varying flavours
Camels
Military funded by the west
US 5th fleet on manoeuvres
Euro politicos need a distraction from a screwed up economy ,US just wants more oil
Haliburton already on-site (desert aquifer)
No fly zone being suggested
It all smells the same ...doesn’t it
Except this time its on our door step and a short boat ride to Euroland ..If the Us get involved in this in any way its all going to erupt !!!! All along North Africa and the emirates .... All it will take is a couple of USA bomb runs on the wrong target (and they will) and there will be one united common enemy ,, after the despot has gone ..The great Satan ......
The US must NOT get involved ...especially armed drones
We cannot afford to have an Iraq débâcle on our doorstep, within a year we will be having suicide fishing boats ......And a flood of nutters looking like refuges straight into Italy after they surrender
this must not be Iraq 2
Ruby Duck
March 1st, 2011 3:10am Report this commentstrapworld :"Why is it that when people become Prime Minister they want to send young men and women to their deaths?"
If Hollywood has it right, psychopaths usually have a bit of previous - eviscerating cats and the like.
If you're thinking of young Tony, he really got started by burning a bunch of cows.
barnacle bill
March 1st, 2011 5:12am Report this commentPatricia S - I think you've hit the nail firmly on it's head!
I doff my old uniform cap to your wisdom, oh that our own politicians were as wise as your good self.
TomTom
March 1st, 2011 7:06am Report this comment"but labours legacy of a £36 billion black hole in the defence budget"
I doubt the Defence Budget has ever been balanced simply because it has long run projects....I think we are subjected to Treasury spin
TrevorsDen
March 1st, 2011 9:00am Report this commentI think you are in denial Tom Tom - the figure comes from the Treasury Select Committee.
Typical labour brain dead wishful thinking. its people like you that have ruined this country and your remarks are proof that we must concentrate on ensuring Labour never regain power as long as they think like you (which is forever).
Dear fatheaded Fatbloke - you ignore the age and size of the T22s and again you ignore that there were to be 12 T45s and under labour 6 SIX were scrapped before they even got on the stocks.
Under Labour the future Frigate - well it just stayed in the future.
Maybe this was because the costs of the 2 giant and unwanted carriers rocketed as did the cost of all their planes.
You may desperately wish to ignore the shambles of a defence budget inherited from labour but sorry dopehead - I won't let you.
Fatbloke on tour
March 1st, 2011 9:09am Report this commentTomTom @ 7.06
The £36bill was a politically constructed kitchen sink number made to get the issue on the front page.
Take out FRES and it all becomes a bit more realistic.
The basic point about the issue is that the MOD cannot manage any form of project more complex that the production of a cheese sandwich.
Add in British Waste of Space who work the system to the benefit of their shareholders and the tax payer doesn't stand a chance.
Take the T45 AAW destroyer project.
Studies started in the 80's post Falklands.
First effort, pan Nato vessel collapsed.
Second effort, three nation project collapsed.
Go it alone with a budget of £8bill for 12 ships.
Design / Development = £2bill.
Manufacture = £500mill each.
What happens?
Development 40% over budget.
Difficult to comprehend where the money went given all the work that has gone before on the radar, the missiles are an existing Frog design and the old excuse of systems integration issues chestnut is usually only good for the odd million not hundreds of millions.
Result £800mill over budget.
Manufacture is 30% over budget.
BWoS playing silly buggers with the workshare agreement. At one point they wanted to build the ships in Barrow which tells you how realistic the plan was. They struggle to build submarines at the best of times and surface ships are a no-no after the oiler fiasco.
Result = £900mill over budget for 6 ships.
Enough is enough.
The project is stopped at 6 units.
BWoS throws their toys out the pram as nos 7+8 are cancelled although not all of the £8bill had been spent.
Moral of this story:
MOD can't do budgets.
BWoS are only interested in money.
Costs go up so numbers are cut.
See the new Nimrod for evidence.
TomTom
March 1st, 2011 9:22am Report this comment"
TrevorsDen
March 1st, 2011 9:00am Report this comment
I think you are in denial Tom Tom - the figure comes from the Treasury Select Committee.
Typical labour brain dead wishful thinking. its people like you that have ruined this country "
The Ad Hominem is farcical Trevor and makes you look a real petulant twerp. The "deficit" relates to projects being shunted. It is just like accounting for Pensions in one period and capitalising the obligations.
It is little cheerleaders like you Trevor that clutter up blogs with slavish adherence to parties rather than comprehending issues.
You are a financial ignoremus and have no idea what the NAO was talking about. It relates to projects being shunted to balance expenditures. In short, Operational Budgets are clashing with Project Budgets....you know like when you've taken on a mortgage and you lose your job
Fatbloke on tour
March 1st, 2011 9:45am Report this commentFailed Blogger @ 9.00
Basic point in this discussion, you got it wrong.
You said that although HMS Cumberland is not long of this world, chopped next month because of the SDSR, it didn't matter as she was being replaced by the new T45 ships.
That is tripe as has been explained to you by myself and others on here.
HMS Cumberland + 3 others are being chopped without replacement.
The new T45 / Daring class AAW destroyers are being built to replace the T42 ships that are coming to the end of their usefull life.
As I explained above the plan was for 12 but the project was over-budget and the numbers were cut.
On the issue of the size of the T22's, what point are you trying to make?
The original T22's were built as high end ASW ships that were not that successful in their main job.
The Falklands showed that they were useful as last ditch AAW ships and when the time came to replace the ships that were sunk in the Falklands - 2 x T21 + 2 x T42 - the RN / MOD went for a GP version of the T22 with a big gun added up front.
These 4 ships, the T22 Batch 3 are HMS Cumberland and here three sisterships and these are the escort vessels chopped in the SDSR without replacement.
As for you stuff about the T26 / FSC / GCS that is currently on the agenda your comments forget an number of issues.
1) We do not have a design.
2) We are spending £127mill on concept generation.
3) The ships will replace the 13 T23 frigates.
4) The T23s were commissioned between 1990 and 2000.
5) The T23's are scheduled for a refit.
6) The work includes upgrades to their radar and missiles.
7) 8 newest will have new upmarket TAS added for more top class ASW work.
8) 5 will become GP vessels and will be the first to be replaced once the T26 design starts to be delivered in 2020'ish.
Finally if you have any other issues or questions about MOD project delivery please do not hesitate to ask.
Victor Southern
March 1st, 2011 10:17am Report this commentIt is good to see that we have so many armchair warriors to decide on our armaments policy and our miltary strategies.
Just think of the money we could save by closing down the MOD and letting these worthies run military affairs from their laptops. Such percipience, such omniscience, such perfection!
General Zod
March 1st, 2011 11:27am Report this commentGood to see that the Labour apparatchiks took copies of all the records with them on leaving government.
The move from a taxpayer-funded job working to further the interests of the Labour Party to a taxpayer-funded (through the unions) job working to further the interests of the unions and the Labour Party must have been almost seamless.
Minnie Ovens
March 1st, 2011 12:53pm Report this commentToday the cuts to pilots in Flying Training were announced.
On average 50% of all those in training, including recently qualified pilots, were cut.
I will make no further comment!
RCE
March 2nd, 2011 10:54am Report this commentPatricia Shaw @ 11.04 and Barnacle Bill @ 5.12-
Not sure of the '1500 innocent palestinians' you are referring to, but lots of people say "boo" (and more besides) whenever Israel conducts military operations over and above the normal 24/7 security measures that are necessary to prevent the extermination of its people. Every main media publication and television channel covers it, often in terms unfavourable to Israel. Even Wee Willie Hague is uncharacteristically prompt in offering his condemnation.
If your point is that no-one suggests military intervention against Israel: it's probably because the circumstances are entirely different.
Back to top