The government should recall parliament

yank

I think what you mean to say is that the US must will the means, because it doesn't matter what the minnows will, or won't.

whatawaste

It is clear that Ghaddafi will not walk away. He does not strike me as someone who would put on a cardigan and slippers and livein quiet retiremnet reading the paper. Has he ever gone on holiday?

Once again western leaders misjudge what makes foreigners tick. Cameron sounds like he did when he urged Brown to resign! This is Ghaddafi's life and the only way he will go is horizontally in a box.

I am not sure what Parliament would accomplish other than lots of hand wringing and exclamations of hot air.

John Montague

Has it occurred to people that we can't possibly attack Iran without at least being very sure that there will be a completely reliable supply of oil from Libya?

Chris lancashire

No, Parliament should not be recalled. It would achieve nothing other than allowing Davis and others a bit of grandstanding.

Malfleur

John Montague

Excellent point. Good to see someone is taking the larger, longer view.

yank

You are becoming tiresome.

Frank P

John Montague

If only the leaders of the West were that astute, forward-looking and united. Machiavellian? Naaahhh!

Muddled, mendacious, meddling and myopic? Definitely! What a mess ...

PayDirt

There are indeed an awful lot of things we can't do besides Iran when we come to rely on windfarms etc.

oldtimer

Somehow I do not think they Cameron, Sarkozy and Obama) will get a regime change resolution through the UN Security Council any time soon. And without that, how can Cameron expect to get such a motion passed by the HoC, given the store he set by 1763 when the HoC voted on the present humanitarian action?

There is a problem here.

yank

John Montague
April 15th, 2011 1:55pm

Has it occurred to people that we can't possibly attack Iran without at least being very sure that there will be a completely reliable supply of oil from Libya?

.

Right.

We have to make sure Libya's <2% contribution to global oil production is reliable, so that the Straits of Hormuz can be shut down, cutting off 40% of global supply.

Absolutely brilliant logic there.

Not that Libya's 2% will be coming on line any time soon, as it won't, unless Obamastan surrenders.

But just to game through your fantasy, befuddled one.

Fatbloke on tour

JF

DD out on manouvers?
I fear Dave the Rave is starting to look weak.
Open goal for Milli-E if he wants to hit the target. UN was all about reducing civilian casualties not regime change.

Politically - We are looking very shifty.
Militarily - Looking a bit threadbare.
Economically - Bills are starting to mount up.

Suez Mk2 in slow motion.

We are being played like a fiddle by the US and the Gulf Arabs.

Justathought

Resolutions 1970 &1973 authorize 'actions to protect civilians from attack or threat of attack'. Applying the ordinary meaning of those words it seems reasonable that that would include the Libyan leadership.

There is much chatter about stalemate but in this particular situation as time moves forward Gadaffi is losing power while the rebels need more time to organize. Look on it as ' a natural pause'!

By all means MP's should debate developments,including using the frozen assets, but meanwhile continue with the air support.

@ Yank

Maybe if the Pickens Plan for energy had been adopted in 2008 you would not be so reliant on imported oil much like ourselves?

Harry Snipes

Quick survey for my dissertation - 2 questions if anyone can spare 30 seconds. Thanks

http://www.surveymonkey.com/s/SYYPY6M

Commentator

Chris Lancashire - Cameron's parrot.

Chris lancashire

FBOT, you wish.

adam

This is not Iraq, there is no land invasion and occupation. This so called "war" is a handful of airstrikes everyday. There is no real risk to forces. It is legal and controlled.

These strikes will be over in a matter of weeks, with Gadaffi gone. Iraq was a different by a magnitude of 10000 to this. There is no point acting the drama queen, and asking for the recall of parliament. What for? Everyone agrees.

Rhoda Klapp

Are our guys getting combat pay? Is war declared? Is it possible that at some future date some poor sod who misidentifies a tank or toyota may be prosecuted for a war crime having gone beyond what some post-facto court decides was his mission?

That's why the adventure needs the cover of legitimacy supplied by parliament. An order given to push the envelope of UN 1973 is in fact an unlawful order, isn't it? Do you expect some RAF aircrew to stand on his rights and refuse to carry it out? Nor do I. That is why he needs proper legal cover. And it is why the US doesn't sign up to international courts on such things.

lids

This just outlines the absurdity of Hague's positioned when interviewed on R4 a couple of days ago. Of course it is about regime change, what did Hague expect? He stupidly called for war crimes charges to be pursued at the very beginning, thereby cornering the rat and giving him no means of escape. Then one of his henchmen defects and is allowed to leave the UK! I think Hague peaked when he was 15 years old. Now we have destroyed all the heavy armour and weaponry in Libya we are inevitably creating an unwinnable situation for either side which will lead to more death and suffering.

Wow, and the FCO was happy to deal with Gaddafi a year ago and overlook all his previous war crimes. Cameron hasn't got a clue and there is a French election coming up and Obama can't wait to exit left and we and the French are looking isolated and foolish in NATO. This Tory Government is a joke. Cameron said in opposition that he didn't want to meddle militarily in foreign countries in the way that Labour under Blair had done. Not only has he done the very opposite Of what he said in opposition, he has done so after slashing spending on his Armed Forces. Incoherence abounds.

Will someone please mount a leadership challenge soon, this joker needs to go back to the media world and leave the job of Prime Minister to a grown up.

TomTom

Ah chris lancashire is so much like Charles I and we know where that ended up. Contempt for Parliament seems to be a real failing of this political system, it is after all contempt for the electorate.

Once people get used to the idea that Prime Ministers think they are Emperors ruling through the Privy Council and ignoring representatives of the voters, then it is open season on taking to the streets as in Berlin in 1989 to topple dictatorships.

Once Cameron thinks he is unaccountable he becomes vulnerable to being deposed or worse. He does not have carte-blanche and has no mandate and even less legitimacy than Gordon Brown

mombassa

Anyone that imagines that the two sides in this civil war (and that is what it is) can be persuaded to sign a peace plan and live together is mistaken. Wars are not fought like a football match with the press and UN as referees. They are between peoples, not armies, as history shows us.
There is no way to defend the civilian population (and most of the rebels are civilians) without regime change. To pontificate about who should bomb where wastes more time and lives. If Qadaffi stays, the Cyrenaikans are dead. Period!
The same mistake was made in Iraq. The first Gulf War was a great success but the Coalition listened to the Arab League, who wished they hadn't, because "we couldn't cause regime change", the only possible solution to Saddam. Using the weak and washy no fly zone, Saddam killed Marsh Arabs, drained their land and started massacring the Kurds (again)! It took another war to sort that out. He even tried to invade Kuwait again. I was there!
Why would the powers want to repeat that catastrophic behaviour in Libya? For no good reason, that is for sure! Cui bono.

yank

Justathought,

Pickens is a cheap hustler, trying to corner nat gas pipelines and market... and government subsidies for his schemes. He's hard over with the Left on all that crony corporatism, along with Pelosi and Obama.

He's doing the same thing with water, trying to corner water rights, and use government power illegitimately in the cornering. Cheap and illicit, he is. Plus he's mucking about with the windmill kookiness, and government subsidies therein. This guy is a non-starter on every score.

The US imports oil mostly from Mexico and Canada. We don't have to, of course, as we have several centuries of oil underneath my feet here, as you should know. But we're good neighbors.

You all? That's a different story. We're having to subsidize your supply, as usual, including clearing the Straits of Hormuz for you.

Cogito Ergosum

We should be less hasty in trying to put the world to rights.

We did nothing in Czechoslovakia (1968), Hungary and Poland (1956), and East Germany (1953). But in the long run things went our way.

We should spend more time learning about foreigners and their countries.

John Montague

Sure, Yank. Weren't you the one trying to convince us how energy secure the US is? But in any case, there's Canada and Mexico. And somehow, I don't think China will be participating in the effort to prevent Iran developing Nukes.

You really do think in apocalyptic do it now shit or bust terms, don't you? If it's not everything, it's nothing.

Meanwhile, in the grown-up world, Libya already accounts for 31% of Italian energy imports, 8-12% of German net oil imports and 8 % of French imports. During any crisis, in 2 or 3 years, a secure and developed Libyan supply will help extend the reserves Europeans would have to rely on quite substantially, and thereby help minimize the impact on the world economy.

Other key European suppliers include Norway, Russia and the UK. Only a small percentage of Gulf oil and gas goes to Europe.

It's not the be all and end all, but then few things ever are.

http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,14880058,00.html

barnacle bill

@ adam

But does everyone agree?
I certainly didn't vote for the Conservatives if they achieved power to go sticking their noses into what is basically a purely Libyan matter.
I thought we had got rid of Gung Ho in our politics when Tony Wot's His Name sloped off over the horizon.

Ian Walker

Harry, your survey is terrible. There's no option for no paper, and the question on the war needs to be clear about the point in time of the support - many who were supportive given the information they were given at the time and no wholly unsupportive.

Fatbloke - you forgot to mention Dog Boiling - has the Rapid Rebuttal Unit Dictionary Of Meaningless Drivel fallen off the desk, and you're not allowed to pick it up without a Health And Safety Risk Assessment?

Malfleur - the "becoming" is entirely superfluous

MaxSceptic

The folly of our 'humanitarian' intervention in the mirage that is the 'Arabian Spring' has long been obvious to anyone who is not a politician or an 'expert'.

We should get out and let them sort out their own houses in their time-honoured tribal way.

TrevorsDen

I am Cameron's parrot!

TrevorsDen

No Mr Lancashire it is a 'first class' post from FBOT

adam

@ barnacle bill

Well Ed Miliband agrees, Douglas Alexander agrees, Nick Clegg agrees. Only 13 MPS voted against. Iraq this isn't.

Vulture

The only reason for Parliament to be recalled is so the 557 stupid berks (including Davis and Bone) who voted for the War of Dave's Folly can look at each other and go 'Doh!'

As for Adam's confident assertion that Ghaddafi will be 'gone in a few weeks' I'll wager a bushel of shekels that he'll be there longer than Dave will be in Downing Street.

Publius

As I said at the start, either do it properly or don't do it at all.

One can only imagine the private comments being made in Washington about the shambles that NATO without the US is making of things.

Malfleur

Ian Walker
I know - English understatement.

yank
Your thinking on oil supply is too rigid and schematic. You don't think, for instance, that if Iranian spigots are closed, other spigots won't be opened wider; how certain are you that the Strait of Hormuz will be blocked - just may be someone has anticipated and provided against that...? - have you reviewed recently the military assets of the anti-Iranian regime forces in the region? Have you taken into account Iranian domestic opposition to the regime and its latent power to sabotage attempts to shut down the Strait? On the other hand, forces taking down the mullahs need a place d'armes which is additional to but a little less high-profile than Iraq and that base needs oil and 2 + 2 = Libya.

HFC

Harry Snipes
April 15th, 2011 2:50pm

It's a poorly constructed survey that provides no option to respond 'none of the above' or to indicate readership of more than one daily paper.

For what purpose is your survey?

HFC

Why recall parliament? What purpose would it serve to do so?

John Montague

@Publius

Involving Turkey and Germany, by putting NATO in charge was a serious mistake.

Without this handicap, things would move faster, even with the US Navy restricting its role to a few sorties and the mission control function.

The need to avoid collateral damage has been set as such a high priority that a lot of French and British sorties return with a full weapons-bay. The Norwegians and Danes are given the easier fuel and ammo dump missions.

Even the rebels on the front-line are saying that they'd be prepared to risk taking more friendly fire, but unfortunately Turkey is poised to exploit any mistakes.

This is quite a subtle mission, and would be so even if the US were flying more ground-attack sorties. Nobody wants to be portrayed as the baddie because its very much about repositioning the West as an ally of the ordinary Arab in the Casbah.

Maybe things will change now that Rasmussen, who has been quite circumspect so far, has said that:

'NATO is absolutely determined to continue its operation for as long as there is a threat against Libyan civilians, and it is impossible to imagine that threat disappearing with Gaddafi in power'

yank

Malfleur
April 15th, 2011 4:40pm

…how certain are you that the Strait of Hormuz will be blocked - just may be someone has anticipated and provided against that...?

.

No maybes about it, the US has been clearing the Straits of Hormuz for 70 years, ever since the Royal Navy fled the Indian Ocean, running like a scalded dog in front of the IJN.

That’s been our job… to provide your oil… courteousy of US taxpayers.

You’re welcome.

And part of our calculus is that we ignore shit-for-brains types yammering about 2% of world crude production while planning on cutting off the Straits and 40% of that production.

yank

The Norwegians and Danes are given the easier fuel and ammo dump missions.

.

Actually, all non-US missions are easier, not just the Norwegians and Danes.

Notice that only the US is attacking Khadaffi's air defenses and missile batteries, still, and providing the full e-warfare screen for all. The Pentagon is making dead certain to broadcast that, too.

I guess nothing but US equipment can fly in the threat zone, as per usual. Same as in the Balkans, of course.

On behalf of the entire US military-industrial complex, I want to thank Dave and Sarko for providing such wonderful real world demonstration of the deficiencies of their military equipment. It obviously ain't good enough to attack Khadaffi's ancient air defenses, as they themselves are stating here, so it's obviously not good enough for Generalissimo Mfaskafilnisosisumowrestler in Bumfuqistan.

So thank you for joining General Dynamic's and Boeing's global marketing staff, Field Marshals!

And on behalf of American aerospace workers everywhere, thank you for supporting America!

Verity

Max Sceptic - Hear hear!!

Annex the oilfields, and let the ME get on with sorting out its own tribal differences.

TrevorsDen

Dear Ms Klapp - the servicemen of various nations are operating under a UN resolution just like the soldiers in Ivory Coast.

Is there a clinic for hysterics like you?

David Davis is a self serving publicist these days. A sham. I used to like him.
There is no evidence that we need to recall parliament following the vote on 1973.

I presume and hope we have special forces in Libya but beyond that there is no immediate indication of putting ground troops in and no need to recall parliament.

Correct Adam. Barnacle conveniently rewrites history.
We are not simply pushing our noses in, we are firstly on a humanitarian mission. And we and the wider europe (and it does affect us) cannot stand idly by whilst a newly resurgent Gadaffi restarts his troublemaking. Does anybody think that even if we did nothing we could continue to treat a Gadaffi that had instigated massacres in a normal way. We would inevitably be in conflict with him one way or another.

Justathought

Yank,

Send T Boone Pickens over here if you don't appreciate him ! Seriously if you can get CNG for $1.50 per gallon from within your borders why would you want to pay $4 per gallon for imported oil?

If the Nat Gas Act passes pretty soon you could have 8 million of your largest trucks using CNG. You have to begin to wean yourselves of the foreign oil addiction sooner or later!

Meanwhile europe including the UK has to conceive its own energy plan, as we are in direct competition with China for the light sweet stuff.

escapedRoger

UN SCR1973 doesn't allow intervention as Cameron et.al. want! That's that!
The UN will never allow the regime change the trio want because they see the AU route as the legal non-belligerent way. It's going to drag and drag,Cameron is cornered.

Bill Fraser

Will recalling parliament do anything to protect the citizens of Misurata from cluster bombs, cluster bombs being fired into populated areas of the city by Qaddafi's forces...

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/04/16/world/africa/16libya.html

Yow Min Lye

And so a few more dead squaddies get to pass through Wootton Bassett.

John Montague

"I guess nothing but US equipment can fly in the threat zone, as per usual."

As in your previous analysis, that led you to claim that there would be no ground strikes until the US had launched the Tomahawks to take out the air defences? That one didn't pan out so well, did it?

I didn't expect dishonesty, Yank. The US flew only two thirds of the missions during the first five days and SCALP/Storm Shadow were used by both British and French aircrews against air defences.

Cruise missiles can be launched at such range that blowing up Libyan SAM sites isn't even necessarily entering a threat zone. After 5 days, there weren't many air defences left, apart from the damn shoulder launched missiles - which are a threat, especially when trying to take out a tank parked right next to a hospital with a medium-range AASM.

What the Pentagon is broadcasting is that it's still helping to enforce the no-fly zone, with six F-16's and five jamming EA18's. The US has also provided a high percentage of the air-refuelling sorties. Important stuff, but not exactly unique, like the B2's and Warthogs.

What a pity that more Arab air-forces haven't participated in this effort. When we have to defend the Arab people against the Iranian threat, it would be useful if more of them were used to interoperating with NATO.

And by the way, just to put it into context, Libya provides Europe with as high a percentage of its oil imports as Saudi Arabia provides the US, and it's just across the Med. Wouldn't do to have that oil sold to the Chinese by some eccentric regime should there be a crisis in the Gulf.

John Montague

@escapedRoger

"The UN will never allow the regime change the trio want "

And this means it won't happen on what planet?

yank

befuddled one,

No need to call me dishonest. Everything I call out has and is occurring, and you can watch it on CNN. You just live in a neo-colonialist fantasy world, and fantasize your own version of reality.

How's that all powerful limey and frog air attack working out, by the way? The one that was gonna devastate Khadaffi all on its lonesome?

Best change to a bigger umbrella, big guy. Khadaffi's got a plentiful supply of urine to spray around, on the deserving.

John Montague

Get those pet-nappies back on, Bushbaby, or we'll have to sell you to a zoo.

The US flew only two thirds of the missions in the first five days, and that's that. I figured you, at least, would respect all the pilots who flew into that threat zone.

Given a freer hand, current NATO ground-attack operations could disperse Gadaffi's forces quite effectively as they moved.

Unfortunately, because of the Turkish interpretation, a column of rocket-equipped land-cruisers approaching a city apparently doesn't constitute a threat to a civilian population until it's taken cover in a populated area and started firing.

I'm hoping that'll change soon. Meanwhile wait a few hours and then check the news from Yefren in the western mountains, where Gadaffi has been hit hard. There's also a lot of fighting around Brega, but it's unclear which way that's going to go.

Andrew Fletcher

Anybody else question the assumption that even if Gadaffi goes that means a happy ending??? Oh I see Gadaffi goes so all his supporters, family, tribe and mercenaries say "ah yes ok that's that let's have a peaceful Libya with western style democracy and make sure the west gets all the oil they need with no interruptions to the supply !!!!

yank

No, befuddled one, the US are the only ones flying in the threat zone, just like the Balkans.

Sorry, but you're just living in a fantasy world. The frogs and limeys provided not even a rounding error to the effort required to take out Khadaffi's air defenses, and are not even capable of the attacks required to suppress the bit which remains. That's still falling to the US, as usual.

Which Grumman, General Electric et al are quite grateful for, of course.

Best check the weather. It looks cloudy with a certainty of Khadaffi urine showers over wherever you're standing right now.

John Montague

An unfamiliar concept for you, but here's a source

“WASHINGTON, March 23, 2011 – By the fifth day of coalition task force operations supporting a no-fly zone in Libya and protecting Libyan civilians, the 13-nation alliance had flown more than 300 sorties in the North African country, Pentagon officials said yesterday.

By 3 p.m. EDT yesterday, the United States had flown 212 sorties, other coalition sorties totaled 124, and Tomahawk missile launches numbered 162, officials said.

Officials said the 336 sorties included 108 strike sorties, meaning they encountered opposition from Moammar Gadhafi’s forces.”

I know you had a lot of trouble doing the maths on BP but that was complicated stuff like percentages. Do you think you can manage fractions? Try this 336/3 = ? <124 ?

The US flew 2/3 of the missions when the main air defenses were still up.

The threat now is from shoulder launched weapons encountered by the NATO pilots conducting ground strikes on enemy armour.

http://www.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=63269

yank

Nothing you've clipped there contradicts what me and the Pentagon are saying... that it is only the US that is operating in the threat zone, and attacking Khadaffis' air defenses (and providing the comprehensive e-screen), same as in the Balkans.

Which would all stand to reason, as the frogs and limeys are militarily impotent.

Oh, and McDonnell Douglas would like to thank Field Marshals Sarko and Dave, as well.

John Montague

Silly Bushbaby, you're making it up as you go along.

"Still" and "as usual", British and French pilots, having flown their share of SEAD sorties in the first five days, are just as exposed as their US allies to the SA-7 Grail/ Strela-2 missiles, now the main threat. Shoulder-launched missiles are rather difficult to take out with a Tomahawk.

yank

And they're not a threat. That's why the impotent frogs and limeys are flying there.

If it was a threat, the US would have to do the job, as per usual.

100% of that job, in fact. As per usual.

John Montague

Where's 'there' in your fevered imagination?

Older Strella's weren't up to much against a jet rather than a helicopter or an AC130, but that doesn't mean that a jet is invulnerable to the newer versions, which have some protection against IR jamming, especially if the mission requires low altitude flying. These things are constantly being updated. Are you claiming that no US jet has ever gone down to a Strella manpad?

yank

I'm not claiming anything. I'm pointing out that if there is a threat, the US is the only one flying in it. As per usual.

John Montague

Well that's a relief, because I think I'd have been quite hard put to actually prove that one had, despite various claims. Still, what's true is that they do scare all pilots into flying higher.

yank

No, what's true is that if there's a threat, only the US is flying in it. As per usual.

John Montague

What's as per usual is that NATO is paralysed. Nobody is flying any relevant missions anyway. The same parking lot is being hit over and over again in Tripoli.

If you're going to argue that that's a US plan, you still have a lot to learn about the human condition. In life, nothing goes to plan.

Libya is now a snarl-up brought on by diplomatic ineptitude - precisely the sort of one hand not knowing what the other is up to foulup which led so many Republicans to vote for Case-Church.

Obama has achieved precisely the opposite of what most Pentagon and State Department strategists wanted - he has made it apparent that, absent a Soviet threat, the NATO political structure is more of a handicap than an asset.

That's Cameron's real embarassment here, not your penile-obsessive waffle about 'potency' which makes one wonder if there's some personal issue you really don't need to tell us about.

Salvaging NATO's reputation is now an issue - which, of course, is why you're quite wrong about Papa Gadaffi's survival.

yank

You're panicking now, befuddled one. I guess I was waiting for that, as it's inevitable with you types. But it's still amusing to watch. ;-)

NATO is the US. It's doing what the US wants. You don't understand that, because you don't understand much.

Now, the impotent frogs and limeys COULD do something on their own. But they can't do anything of consequence, as we know. They're impotent without the US.

So, Khadaffi continues to shower urine on your head, and Obamastan is another day closer to formation. It's all going according to plan. You just don't understand. But then, your type never does. That's why they make heavy boards, to get the point through to you types.

John Montague

NATO is the US

2 is 3

Chocolate cotton is a logistics supply.

I was trying to shift the discussion to something more serious and you come up with noisome bloat, like a rotting carcass. Your posts consist of more and more hot air, less and less that's worth addressing. A sad decline, rather like America's at the hands of increasingly incompetent Presidents.