NATO risks spilling own blood while mounting pressure on Gaddafi
Published: 30 May, 2011, 16:37
Edited: 30 May, 2011, 22:25
TAGS: Arms, Conflict, NATO, UK, Politics, Alice Hibbert, Libya, Laura Smith
NATO is stepping up its pressure on Colonel Gaddafi as Britain and France are ready to deploy strike helicopters into Libya. But it comes at the risk of suffering their first casualties after two months of one-way bunker buster bombing.
NATO Secretary General Fogh Rasmussen said on Monday Gaddafi’s “reign of terror is coming to an end”. He added the coalition forces will keep pressuring the Libyan government as it’s coming closer to achieving its goals.
Part of this mounting pressure is the deployment of the strike helicopters, which are soon to provide NATO forces in Libya with new capabilities.
“They can fly low; they can fly slow; so they can hit targets that fast jets can’t hit from the air. They also involve a fair amount of risk. They can be shot down much more easily than a fast jet, so the prospect of NATO personnel being captured on the ground has just gone up,” explains Shashank Joshi, associate fellow a the defense think tank Royal United Services Institute.
The Apaches, which will be joined by a contingent of French helicopters, can maneuver in urban areas and attack fairly small targets. They’ll make it easier to take out arms stores, and target places where Colonel Gaddafi may be hiding.
The deployment is part of Prime Minister David Cameron’s strategy to “turn up the heat” in Libya.
“They seem to think if they quote the UN resolution at the same time as they call for Gaddafi to go and for regime change, it’s a sort of guarantee, or as a laissez-passer. Frankly they’re involved in a civil war in Libya. The deployment of helicopters, the intensive bombing of Tripoli that’s going on – this is a war about regime change,” British MP Jeremy Corbyn believes.
The helicopters mark only the latest escalation of this conflict. Following the no-fly zone, NATO sent in advisors to train the rebels, introduced drone patrols and by the first week of May, had flown nearly 6,000 strike sorties, with Tripoli subjected to the heaviest bombing.
A recent YouGov poll for the Sun tabloid newspaper showed less than half of Britons now support the intervention in Libya. But that number’s likely to plummet once UK troops are in significantly more danger.
“Just wait, if a helicopter crashes and God forbid we lose ten people… If that happened, [if] we started being blown out of the sky – don’t even think about it. So the issue is we haven’t dropped any blood. Yeah, we’ve dropped tens of millions of pounds which we haven’t got, but not single one of our people has died. When that happens, the game, and the PR game, will change,” Kelvin MacKenzie, former editor for The Sun expects.
People have marched against the Libyan war in the UK, but in small numbers compared to the million that marched ahead of the invasion of Iraq. But helicopters bring the fighting closer to the ground, and with it, a higher risk of death, as well as fierce opposition at home.
The government might be able to defend that, as long as the new strategy makes rapid progress. But if it doesn’t, many see the next step as troops on the ground – in clear defiance of the UN resolution that allowed the original no-fly zone to be enforced in Libya.
The situation is getting worse for the West in Libya, as an operation which they believed would be short and easy is taking longer than expected, said Patrick Hayes, a reporter for the London-based Spiked online magazine.
“In many ways it seems that the situation is getting worse for the West in Libya,” Hayes said. “I think that at first they thought they could swoop in and actually bomb the country into democracy. They thought this is going to be quite a quick process, where they could basically keep their hands [clean] at a distance – bomb [their way] into Libya, get rid of Gaddafi and then everything will be all right. Now obviously that is not the case. And these bunker-buster bombs and helicopters are inevitably going to make the situation worse. They could bring about civilian casualties in Libya, and I think that reeks of desperation.”
30.05.2011, 13:39
9 comments
Mladic won’t live to see Hague trial - lawyerLawyers of the former Bosnian Serb general Ratko Mladic have lodged an appeal against his extradition to the Hague as they are afraid he might fail to live to the trial. Meanwhile thousands protest Mladic arrest in Belgrade. |
Syria: the times of peace will comeMany Palestinian refugees have found a new home in Syria and they do not support the ongoing riots. RT’s Nadezhda Kevorkova talked to one of the refugees, horse breeder Abu Saleh, who believes that the time of peace will come. Arab world protests |
NATO will do everything that it possibly can in order to achieve its objectives in Libya. Soon there will be a "humanitarian" invasion of the North African country. If there is a loss of NATO lives, the big powers will simply see this as a simple business exchange: blood for oil. Always remember, that world issues are always dictated and controlled by the big transnational corporations, which includes the big oil companies.
Konstantin Lighting war has number of closely related meanings that include: the use of massive- overwhelming blow against the enemy that is intended to produce maximum damage to the enemy and minimum to the soldiers of the nation(1) that that delivered that overwhelming blow- which in turn means, there is no regards to the lives-both civilians and soldiers- of those who receive this overwhelming blow. This is the basis of 20th century armoured total war. So you see I do understand what this term means. In lighting wars, the lives of the enemy do not matter. How do you think this military tactic failed in the Eastern Front? Because those trained in the Blitzkrieg formula had philosophical mindset that sadly convinced them that lighting warfare armoured them from death! This is where the Germany got the term “invisibility” but the Russians got them out of their armoured vehicles and force them to fight and that is why Germany lost the war in the Eastern Front because the lighting war from a distance has failed in the East.







Spelling correct: This is meant to be invincible not invisible.