Britain May Soon Deploy Ground Troops in Libya

It was obvious when British officiers were helping the rebels get their act together that the formal ground troops will soon follow. We have been there now for over 4 weeks and the war isn't over yet?

(Telegraph) — Britain “may have to look at” deploying ground troops in the Libya campaign in order to establish safe havens for civilians, Liam Fox has said.

Fears of a humanitarian crisis have grown as food imports into Libya’s rebel-held east have been hit while the National Transitional Council struggles to establish lines of credit and foreign traders fear they will not be paid.

Dr Fox, the defence secretary, was asked if soldiers would be needed for humanitarian purposes or to protect safe havens in Libya or its borders and if this would require a new United Nations mandate.

In response to the question by Jeffrey Donaldson, the DUP MP, Dr Fox accepted that it was “something we may have to look at”.

Afghan officer kills 9 Americans and Obama Doesnt Care

Obama forgot we are still fighting in Afghanistan. The toll number is 970 dead American soldiers and climbing. Just bomb the whole damn country and call it the day (showing frustration and disgust)!

(Yahoo) KABUL, Afghanistan – A veteran Afghan military pilot said to be distressed over his personal finances opened fire at Kabul airport after an argument Wednesday, killing eight U.S. troops and an American civilian contractor.

Those killed were trainers and advisers for the nascent Afghan air force. The shooting was the deadliest attack by a member of the Afghan security forces, or an insurgent impersonating them, on coalition troops or Afghan soldiers or policemen. There have been seven such attacks so far this year.

Although the individual circumstances may differ, the incidents of Afghans turning against their coalition partners seem to reflect growing anti-foreigner sentiment independent of the Taliban. Afghans are increasingly tired of the nearly decade-long war and think their lives have not improved despite billions of dollars in international aid.

New Low Poll for Obama on Afghanistan

I post a blog yesterday mentioning how 500 Taliban insurgents escaped from a prison in Afghanistan. I also added that under Obama's watch, over 950 military soldiers died in a 3 year span. To note, under the 8 years under Bush, only 620 military soldiers died. This incompetence of this current president is inexcusable. If his intention is to leave Afghanistan before the 2012 presidential elections, the president needs to pack it up now and stop any further spill of our precious blood and treasure. Now, the news of the handling of the Afghanistan war is voice by the low approval numbers for the president by the American people. If the Democrats keep insisting this is another Vietnam, their wish is finally coming true.

(ABC News) A record 49 percent of Americans now disapprove of President Obama’s handling of the situation in Afghanistan, up 8 points since January. And those who disapprove “strongly” outnumber strong approvers by nearly a 2-1 margin.

With Obama holding his monthly national security meeting on Afghanistan today, the results show a significant drop in the president’s approval rating on handling the issue, down 12 points in the latest ABC News/Washington Post poll from a year ago.

The change follows an ABC/Post poll last month in which a new low, 31 percent, said the war in Afghanistan has been worth fighting. Sixty-four percent said it is not worth fighting, with 49 percent feeling that way “strongly,” both record highs in ABC/Post polls.

The spike in disapproval in the latest survey, produced for ABC News by Langer Research Associates, is almost entirely due to a slide in support on the right. Compared to January, disapproval is up by 21 points among Republicans (from 48 percent to 69 percent), by 12 points among conservatives (from 51 percent to 63 percent), and by 11 points among Tea Party supporters (from 55 to 66 percent).

Views on the war could impact Obama’s fortunes in the next election: Among those who disapprove of his handling of the situation, 70 percent say they will definitely not vote for him for re-election in 2012.

Obama Good War in Afghanistan Becomes a Cluster

Nearly 500 Taliban flee in daring Afghan jailbreak

Nato screwed it up again. They are unable to stabilize the region. Their incompetence is making the Afghanistan War look utterly hopeless. In fact, Obama's war in Afghanistan is unraveling. Afghanistan President Karzi is playing both side of the war and ironically, the US is pouring billions to his corrupt government. To make matters worst, Obama is allowing soldiers to die in order to make plight we have to get out of Afghanistan. Mr. President, why not get them out now and not before the 2012 elections. Mr.President, blood and treasure refers to our military men and women, if you didn't know. Under Obama's watch, there were more deaths in the 3 years as president(960) compared to the 8 years under the Bush Administration (630).

Coalition Military Fatalities By Year

Year: US
2001: 12
2002: 49
2003: 48
2004: 52
2005: 99
2006: 98
2007: 117
2008: 155
2009: 317
2010: 499
2011: 100
Total: 1546
(courtesy: http://icasualties.org/oef/)

(Breitbart) Almost 500 Taliban fighters and commanders escaped from a prison in an audacious jailbreak in southern Afghanistan which the government admitted Monday was a security "disaster".
The Taliban said it sprung the inmates out of the prison in Kandahar through a one-kilometre tunnel that took five months to dig, and claimed all those who escaped belonged to the militia, including over 100 commanders.

The daring breakout in the Taliban's heartland, the second from the prison in three years, threatens to undermine recent gains claimed by NATO forces in the area after a US-led troop surge, just as the annual fighting season begins.

It is also a major embarrassment for Afghan forces who are due to take on greater responsibility for security in their country ahead of the planned withdrawal of foreign combat troops in 2014.

2 GOP RINOs Endorse Assassinating Gaddafi with US Ground Troops

Senator's Lindsey Graham and John McCain, two of our favorite GOP RINO's, are endorsing a new plan; assassinate Gaddafi. Graham wanted to "cut the head of the snake off," which is a code name for "assassination." Then McCain stated, "Our Nato allies neither have the assets, nor frankly the will," which is another code name for "US ground troops." McCain's reference my be associated with air power, but it does open the door to ground troops as well. I don't think McCain was referring to the predator drones Obama donated to NATO.

The wonder twins of the GOP are dictating a new policy, which Obama probably will endorse because the longer the presidents stays in Libya, it will hurt his 2012 presidential re-election bid.

(Telegraph) — Senior western leaders called for Nato to adopt an assassination policy against Col Muammar Gaddafi to salvage the bombing campaign in Libya from a descent into stalemate.

The calls came as Col Gaddafi was reported to have strengthened his grip on power by repatriating billions of dollars in overseas assets that should have been frozen by UN sanctions.

On Sunday, there was growing pressure on Coalition forces to directly target Col Gaddafi with military strikes.

Senator Lindsey Graham, a Republican member of the Senate Armed Services committee, said that the quickest way to end the emerging stalemate was to “cut the head of the snake off”. He said: “The people around Gaddafi need to wake up every day wondering, ‘Will this be my last?’

Senator John McCain, who visited Libya at the weekend, also said that the Libyan dictator should be targeted but argued that it was more important to increase American firepower over Libya. He said: “It’s pretty obvious to me that the US has got to play a greater role on the air power side. Our Nato allies neither have the assets, nor frankly the will – there’s only six countries of the 28 in Nato that are actively engaged in this situation.”

Britain France and Italy Sent Officers to Libya, ground troops soon

Don't you worry. NATO will deploy ground troop real soon.

(BBC) France and Italy have said they are to send small teams of military officers to advise Libyan rebels who are seeking to topple Col Muammar Gaddafi.

French officials said fewer than 10 would be sent, while Italy's defence minister announced that 10 would go.

The UK said on Tuesday it was sending a similar team to the city of Benghazi.

The despatch of the military advisers underlines the growing concerns in a number of European capitals that the air campaign over Libya is not yielding the expected results. After more than four weeks of air strikes, Libyan government forces have not crumbled; the Libyan regime still seems firmly in control in Tripoli; and the rebels have shown very limited capabilities on the ground.

France for one wants to step up the air campaign, but it is clear that unless the rebels can be turned into a more effective fighting force, and without a genuine ceasefire, Nato air operations may have to continue for the foreseeable future.

The French, British and Italians are all stressing that their small deployments do not constitute "boots on the ground" - they have no intention of deploying combat troops. But some MPs in London fear that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the allies risk being drawn ever deeper into the Libyan conflict.

British Military Officers Set to Join Ground Fight in Libya

At first, NATO will allow British military officers to assist the rebels in Libya. But later, I won't be surprise more of military presence in Libya with the US leading the way. To bring military officers on the ground means that the rebels are losing badly and Gaddafi is standing his ground.

(Stratis Incite) The United Kingdom will send military officers to help bolster Libyan rebel grounds fighting Colonel Gaddafi. Britain’s National Security Council had decided to ‘move quickly’ to expand the team already in Benghazi to include an additional military liaison advisory team.

This is the next chapter in the battle for Libya. All other options of just bombing from the sky at Gaddafi’s forces was limited in nature since he had already adjusted his battle plans against the rebels and knew NATO had the advantage in the match up. His only other effective maneuver was to scale back his forces and fight from within the cities. The accidental bombing that killed rebel forces who were returning fire at Gaddafi’s forces whom NATO pilots confused as Gaddafi’s fighters was a turning point that on the ground spotters, officers were need to help guide pilots flying missions enforcing and protecting the no-fly-zone.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said today: “The National Security Council has decided that we will now move quickly to expand the team already in Benghazi to include an additional military liaison advisory team. “This contingent will be drawn from experienced British military officers.”

NATO Bomb Rebels Again and With No Apology

NATO and the Libyan rebels have no formal form of communication. Who would have known rebels were able to seize Gaddafi's tanks? In fact, NATO shouldn't be blamed for blowing the tanks to pieces and killing more rebels. NATO didn't know rebels have the knowledge to drive the tanks. As the crisis enters into the third week, the war has shifted dramatically to Gaddafi's advantage. Rebels are upset because NATO is helping Gaddafi instead of them. It's going to be a very long year as this crisis doesn't seem to have an end date.

(Mail Online) Libyan rebels turned their fury on Nato yesterday after at least 13 fighters were killed and dozens wounded in an airstrike.

Rebel commanders said tanks and military hardware captured from Colonel Gaddafi’s forces had been attacked in daylight with missiles despite being marked on the top in yellow as requested by Nato.

Four missiles hit the 30-vehicle convoy, which included a bus packed with fighters, on the outskirts of the eastern oil port of Brega, according to one rebel commander.

Nato said last night it was investigating the claims that, if confirmed, would be the third time rebels or civilians have been killed after being mistaken for pro-Gaddafi forces.

NATO Fears War without End in Libya

Why is the US in Libya? Is it for oil? It may be an easy war to do. This is what Obama as told America. Obama said that we will go in and leave within a few days or a week. Well, we have been there for over several weeks and it is becoming a stalemate. Again, why are we still there? This will be 3 wars Obama is maintaining. It will a war with no end except for despair. By having no game plan or a concise objective, this war in Libya is lost.

(Spiegel) The front in Libya is barely moving as the country remains split between rebels and Gadhafi's troops. The rebels are complaining of not receiving enough air support, but NATO is hardly in a position to ramp it up after the withdrawal of US fighter jets. The resulting stalemate underscores the lack of a clear strategy for the allies in Libya.

American warplanes had hardly left the skies over Libya when the remonstrations began. "NATO has let us down," said rebel military chief Abdul Fattah Younis. As the rebels retreated in the town of Brega in the face of a heavy onslaught by Gadhafi's troops, there were no NATO planes in sight.

The withdrawal of the American planes, which flew more than half of the sorties in the first two weeks of the air strikes, has weakened NATO's potential force. With the organization having taken control of the operation, American planes are now only in standby mode, leaving the much smaller air forces of France and the United Kingdom to take on most of the workload. Appeals from the NATO leadership to member countries to send more aircraft have so far been met with little success. Only the British have beefed up their presence, increasing the number of its Tornado contingent from eight to 12. The French, meanwhile, are having to split their military resouces between two fronts now, with the opening of the conflict in the Ivory Coast.

But the Libyan rebels are not alone in their complaints: Within NATO, there is also increasing frustration at the slow progress on the ground. The seemingly rudderless attacking and fleeing of the untrained fighters in the face of government soldiers is causing the Western allies to despair, albeit not in public, because it looks more and more likely that the undeclared aim of the international intervention -- the removal of dictator Moammar Gadhafi -- will probably never be achieved.

And this mutual disillusionment suggests that the second phase of the civil war is now beginning. The situation which critics had feared from the start has now seemingly occurred: a stalemate. The rebels are strong enough, with the support of NATO, to maintain their control of Benghazi, but are too weak to drive on in the direction of Tripoli. The front is moving a few miles back and forth, but the split between the Gadhafi-controlled west of the country and the rebel zone in the east seems to be solidifying.

Finally, US Ground Troops are Being Planned for Libya

At this point, you can not believe everything coming from this president. Obama broke so many campaign promises. So, I believe he will put ground troops in Libya because this war means everything for his re-election. To add, it will piss-off many antiwar supporters and liberals, but Obama doesn't care. Air strike will no work in urban combat. There are too many civilians getting in harms way. Since we committed ourselves to this "war," ground troops is the only solution. Once ground troops are in Libya, we can say Obama owns this war. Not Bush, but Obama.

(CBS/AP) WASHINGTON - The United States may consider sending troops into Libya with a possible international ground force that could aid the rebels, according to the general who led the military mission until NATO took over.

Army Gen. Carter Ham also told lawmakers Thursday that added American participation would not be ideal, and ground troops could erode the international coalition and make it more difficult to get Arab support for operations in Libya.

Ham said the operation was largely stalemated now and was more likely to remain that way since America has transferred control to NATO.

President Barack Obama has said repeatedly there will be no U.S. troops on the ground in Libya, although there are reports of small CIA teams in the country. Secretary of Defense Robert Gates told lawmakers last week that there would be no American ground troops in Libya "as long as I am in this job."

NATO Accidentally Killed More Libyan Rebels, AGAIN

This is NATO. What do you expect? Incompetence is the norm, but I don't blame them. The rebels and Gaddafi are both the same; a bunch of terrorist.

(BBC) Rebels in eastern Libya say their forces have been mistakenly hit in a Nato air raid.

Doctors in Ajdabiya told the BBC at least 13 rebel fighters had been killed by the strike on a rebel tank position.

The BBC's Wyre Davies reports chaotic scenes on the outskirts of Ajdabiya, with rebel forces in retreat reporting being hit by Nato air strikes.

It is the third such incident in recent days involving international forces deployed to protect Libyan civilians.

One rebel commander told the BBC he saw at least four missiles land among rebel fighters.

Many people have been killed and many more have been injured, he said.

Civilians are reported to be fleeing Ajdabiya in their thousands, according to the latest wire reports, after rumours spread that pro-Gaddafi forces were preparing to attack the city.

There is considerable anger among rebel troops after what appears to have been a terrible mistake.

They are asking why rebel units were hit, when they could be seen clearly advancing in a westerly direction towards the front line.

"It is unbelievable," said one Benghazi resident. "Nato, with all the equipment they have - is this the second mistake? Is it really a mistake or something arranged secretly?"

Air Force spending $4 million a day for Libya war

It is nice to know there is at least transparency with the military. It would be nice to see Obama more forthcoming. What happen to the promise "the most transparent administration ever?" Yeah, right!

(Yahoo) WASHINGTON – The Air Force secretary says the service has been spending about $4 million a day to keep 50 fighter jets and nearly 40 support aircraft in the Libya conflict, including the cost of munitions.

Secretary Michael Donley tells reporters that the Air Force has spent $75 million as of Tuesday morning on the war. He says the U.S. decision to end its combat strike role in the conflict will cut costs, but he could not say by how much.

He says the Air Force has spent close to $50 million on the relief effort for the Japan earthquake, including $40 million to evacuate between 5,000-6,000 U.S. personnel.

The total U.S. costs for the Libya air campaign as of March 28 were $550 million, not counting normal deployment spending.

In Libya, Rebel Fighers Now But al Qaeda Back Then

It is now official. The Libyan rebels are al-Qaeda members and supporters. This is the same group Obama wanted to arm with US weapons to fight Gaddafi. It is pathetic that we don't know who is the enemy. At this point picking the lesser of two evils, I pick Gaddafi. If we allow NATO to continue to kill the rebels "accidentally," Gaddafi can just sit back and wait till the international coalition implode. The Libyan war is a total joke.

(ABC News) Less than four years before Libya's popular opposition movement took up arms and revolted against Moammar Gadhafi with enthusiastic U.S. backing, anti-Gadhafi fighters chose another tactic to hit back at the hated dictator: they joined al Qaeda and tried to kill American soldiers in Iraq, according to U.S. documents.

In 2007 the U.S. Department of Defense snatched more than 600 records of al Qaeda's foreign fighters in Iraq and discovered nearly a fifth of the foreigners were from Libya, according to a report by West Point's Combating Terrorism Center released later that year. Within those records, the total put Libya second only to Saudi Arabia in total fighters and "far and away" the largest provider of foreign fighters per capita to the terrorist organization.

The report ties the surge of Libyan recruits to a formal pledge of allegiance to al Qaeda by a major anti-Gadhafi group in 2007.

A day before President Barack Obama authorized covert support of the rebels in Libya, NATO Supreme Allied Commander in Europe U.S. Admiral James Stavridis said officials will watch potential terrorist presence in the opposition "very closely," but had so far only seen "flickers" of it.

Doubts About NATO in Libya as U.S. Takes Backseat

It is not a good sign when the good guys have doubts about the mission. There is a good chance it will be a "stalemate," which is a Gaddafi victory. This war is an ultimate waste of blood and treasure and money. If there was ground troops, the Libyan war would have ended in couple days. The war is now over two weeks old with no end in sight.

(ABC News) With the U.S. pledge to shift the majority of combat actions to Britain, France and other NATO allies, there is hope that a barrage of assaults on Gadhafi's strongholds will bolster the disjointed rebel forces after several days during which they have lost much of the ground they gained in the first days of the strikes.

A number of U.S. combat forces will cease operations on Sunday, including U.S. Navy destroyers and submarines that have been launching Tomahawk cruise missiles from the Mediterranean. Also beginning Sunday no U.S. aircraft will be flying strike missions -- though planes and naval vessels will be on standby.

Military experts said that America's reduced role in enforcing the Libyan no-fly zone could cripple efforts to keep Gadhafi's forces from battering the rag-tag army trying to topple him.

They said they fear that without U.S. willingness to go after Gadhafi's troops and equipment from the air, and without U.S. ground controllers pinpointing targets, the effort to shield the rebels will fail.

"The idea that the AC-130s and the A-10s and American air power is grounded unless the place goes to hell is just so unnerving that I can't express it adequately," said Sen. Lindsay Graham, R-S.C. "The only thing I would ask is, please reconsider that."

Even Defense Secretary Robert Gates wondered out loud whether the NATO airstrikes can succeed without the United States in the lead.

"They certainly have made that commitment, and we will see," Gates said.

Officials said Gadhafi's army has lost as much as 25 percent of its firepower, but it still outnumbers the Libyan opposition by 10-to-1.