Libya : A no lie zone

[Magda Hassan]

[Magda Hassan]

Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed

by Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya

Global Research, March 19, 2011

The U.S. and its allies are embarking on another regime change operation. Before they started their attacks on the Libyans, they admitted that there would be civilians casualities in an act of irony. They claim to be acting to save civilians, but they will be killing them.

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper said the action amounts to an 'act of war' that is critical to remove Moammar Gadhafi from power before he massacres any more of his own people," according to the Edmonton Journal. [1] It also added: "The prime minister acknowledged that the military operation will be complex and could lead to casualties among the very civilians that nations are trying to protect, and perhaps among the military personnel being sent to Libya." [2]

The war criminals are back at it again.

Hours after the attacks, sources in Libya have reported that three medical facilities were bombarded.[3] Two were hospitals and one a medical clinic.[4] These were civilian facilities.

Al-Tajura Hospital was hit as was Saladin Hospital in Ain Zara. The clinic that was bombed was also located in the vicinity of Tripoli, the Libyan capital.[5] Not only where these civilian structures, but they were also all far away from the combat zone.
Civilian air facilities throughout Libya have been attacked.[6] Libyan sources have also said that all the Libyan military academies have also been destroyed. [7] This is a means to prevent Libya from training officers to defend itself.
The same sources have also said that all Libyan military bases were attacked, even ones that have no connection with imposing a no-fly zone. Libyan air bases, naval bases, and ground bases were attacked by the new Iraq-style "coalition of the willing." Moreover, a vast naval blockade around Libya has now been imposed by the U.S. and its allies.
According to (unconfirmed) internal Libyan sources, two French jets were also shot down by the Libyan military near Janzour (Janzur/Zanzur). [7] According to the same source, another French military jet was shot down by the Libyans near Anjile. [8] People in Benghazi are also fleeing the city, because of the war. [9] Surt (Sidra) and Misratah have also been attacked by the French, the U.S., the British and their coalition allies.[10]
The U.S. and its allies are now the ones that are creating a real humanitarian disaster. They talk about peace while they arm the Benghazi-based opposition rebels via the Egyptian military junta, which is as much a military client as its so-called civilian predecessor.[11] This is also a violation of the United Nations Security Council resolution that the U.S. and its allies passed, which states that no weapons are to be sent to Libya.

Hillary Clinton was in both Tunisia and Egypt in relation to the operations directed against Libya. Both the regime in Tunis and the military junta in Cairo are overtly and covertly supporting the war against Libya. The autocrats of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) have also indicated that they will send military forces to attack Libya.

Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya specializes on the Middle East and Central Asia. He is a Research Associate at the Centre for Research on Globalization. Please consult his other articles about Libya.

NOTES
[1] Mark Kennedy, Canada joins UN coalition aerial mission on Libya," Edmonton Journal, March 19, 2011.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Sources from within Libya.
[4] Ibid.; Undoubtedly there will be reports made in the U.S., Canada, and the European Union that will claim in Israeli-fashion that Gaddafi has moved military assets near schools and hospitals in an effort to justify the attacks on civilian structures.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Ibid.; Also please note the spelling of this location in the Latin script may be different from the official transliteration
[9] Ibid.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Giles Elgood, "Egypt arming Libya rebels, Wall Street Journal reports," ed. Andrew Roche, Reuters, March 18, 2011.

[Albert Doyle]

Obama is showing his true lap dog, puppet, phony "change" president nature by saying America is bombing Lybia because Khadafy said he would show no mercy and that he was slaughtering his own citizens.

1) Perhaps Khadafy should have said he was "going wild" like Israel's Livni when the US stood by and allowed what was determined to be serious war crimes to be committed against unarmed civilians in Gaza. Khadafy is eating cruise missiles because he had the bad taste of using wrong verbiage.

2) The ultimate hypocrisy is Obama saying that Khadafy was "killing his own citizens". Hmmm, I seem to remember a false flag attack a few years ago that killed nearly 3000 Americans that was arranged, and allowed to happen, by the US's CIA. As a matter of fact that major act of evil treachery and treason against their own people put the American military in Khadafy's neighborhood in the first place.

3) Since when has the US had such serious sensitivity over the death of arab civilians? Just a few years ago we initiated a war crime invasion based on WMD war crime lies that led to the deaths of 100,000's of arab civilians. "Dictatorship"???

4) If a regime change was done against one of the most murderous non-democratic entities in the world today - the US Government, with its rogue and lawless military that runs around committing wars at its liesure against any enemy it decides via its own filthy propaganda, they wouldn't hesitate to slaughter the righteous Americans who stood up and tried to do a regime change where it would do the most good. And they know it, which is why they are major evil hypocrites of biblical scale. And they wouldn't hesitate to kill brave Americans who tried to stand up to them with the claim they were defending democracy - something they wipe their asses with on a daily basis.

Time for the regime change here...

[Peter Lemkin]

It is not 'regime change' we need...it is a totally NEW form or government, polity, governance...180 degrees from all of the old.....or die...soon...very, VERY soon. Almost nothing of the old 'regime' can we keep. The only one that quickly comes to mind it the exact time from the Bureau of Standards....precious little else is anything but lies in the service of the Oligarchy to dominate and enslave the rest of the Nation and the Planet....

[Carsten Wiethoff]

Maybe this interview with Gaddafis son explains the motivation for Sarkozy's strong involvement against Gaddafi:
http://www.euronews.net/2011/03/16/gadda...-traitors/

I quote:

Saif al-Islam: "Sarkozy must first give back the money he took from Libya to finance his electoral campaign. We funded it and we have all the details and are ready to reveal everything. The first thing we want this clown to do is to give the money back to the Libyan people. He was given assistance so that he could help them. But he's disappointed us: give us back our money. We have all the bank details and documents for the transfer operations and we will make everything public soon."

[Magda Hassan]

I hope Gaddafi sends it all to Wikileaks or any of the other leak venues available. No wonder the French hate him. And its not just for his dress sense.

[Magda Hassan]

Libya: Largest Military Undertaking since the Invasion of Iraq. Towards a Protracted Military Operation

by Michel Chossudovsky

Global Research, March 20, 2011




Outright lies by the international media: Bombs and missiles are presented as an instrument of peace and democratization... This is not a humanitarian operation. The war on Libya opens up a new regional war theater.
There are three distinct war theaters in the Middle East Central Asian region. Palestine, Afghanistan and Iraq.
What is unfolding is a fourth US-NATO War Theater in North Africa, with the risk of escalation.

These four war theaters are functionally related, they are part of an integrated US-NATO military agenda.

The bombing of Libya has been on the drawing board of the Pentagon for several years as confirmed by former NATO commander General Wesley Clark.
Operation Odyssey Dawn is acknowledged as the "biggest Western military intervention in the Arab world since the invasion of Iraq began exactly eight years ago." (Russia: Stop 'indiscriminate' bombing of Libya - Taiwan News Online, March 19, 2011).
This war is part of the battle for oil. Libya is among the World's largest oil economies with approximately 3.5% of global oil reserves, more than twice those of the US.
The underlying objective is to gain control over Libya's oil and gas reserves under the disguise of a humanitarian intervention.
The geopolitical and economic implications of a US-NATO led military intervention directed against Libya are far-reaching.
"Operation Odyssey Dawn " is part of a broader military agenda in the Middle East and Central Asia which consists in gaining control and corporate ownership over more than sixty percent of the world's reserves of oil and natural gas, including oil and gas pipeline routes.
With 46.5 billion barrels of proven reserves, (10 times those of Egypt), Libya is the largest oil economy in the African continent followed by Nigeria and Algeria (Oil and Gas Journal). In contrast, US proven oil reserves are of the order of 20.6 billion barrels (December 2008) according to the Energy Information Administration. U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Liquids Reserves).
Largest Military Undertaking since the Invasion of Iraq
A military operation of this size and magnitude, involving the active participation of several NATO member and partner countries is never improvised. Operation Odyssey Dawn was in the advanced stages of military planning prior to the protest movement in Egypt and Tunisia.
Public opinion was led to believe that the protest movement had spread spontaneously from Tunisia and Egypt to Libya.
The armed insurgency in Eastern Libya is directly supported by foreign powers. Rebel forces in Benghazi immediately hoisted the red, black and green banner with the crescent and star: the flag of the monarchy of King Idris, which symbolized the rule of the former colonial powers. (See Manlio Dinucci, Libya-When historical memory is erased, Global Research, February 28, 2011)
The insurrection was also planned and coordinated with the timing of the military operation. It had been carefully planned months ahead of the protest movement, as part of a covert operation.
US, British special forces were reported to be on the ground "helping the opposition" right from the outset.
What we are dealing with is a military roadmap, a timeline of carefully planned military and intelligence events.

United Nations Complicity
So far, the bombing campaign has resulted in countless civilian casualties, which are either categorized by the media as "collateral damage" or blamed on the Libyan armed forces.
In a bitter irony, the UN Security Council Resolution 1973 grants NATO a mandate "to protect civilians"

Protection of civilians
4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council; (UN Security Council Resolution on Libya: No Fly Zone and Other Measures, March 18, 2011)

The UN resolution grants coalition forces carte blanche to engage in an all out war against a sovereign country in derogation of international law and in violation of the UN charter. It also serves dominant financial interests: it not only allows the military coalition to bomb a sovereign country, it also allows for the freezing of assets, thereby jeopardizing Libya's financial system.

Asset freeze
19. Decides that the asset freeze imposed by paragraph 17, 19, 20 and 21 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall apply to all funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories, which are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the Libyan authorities, ....

No where in the UNSC resolution is the issue of regime change mentioned. Yet it is understood that opposition forces will receive part of the money confiscated under Article 19 of resolution 1973. In fact discussions with opposition leaders to that effect have already taken place. Its called cooptation and financial fraud:

20. Affirms its determination to ensure that assets frozen pursuant to paragraph 17 of resolution 1970 (2011) shall, at a later stage, as soon as possible be made available to and for the benefit of the people of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya;

With regard to the "Enforcement of the arms embargo" under para. 13 of the resolution, coalition forces will commit themselves without exception to enforcing an arms embargo on Libya. Yet from outset they have violated Art. 13, by supplying weapons to opposition forces in Benghazi.

[/url]
[url=http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=20425]

Protracted Military Operation?
Concepts are turned upside down. In an utterly twisted logic. peace, security and protection of the Libyan people, are to be achieved through missile attacks and aerial bombings.
The objective of the military operation is not the protection of civilians but regime change and the break up the country, as in Yugoslavia, namely the partition of Libya into separate countries. The formation of a separate State in the oil producing area of Eastern Libya has been contemplated by Washington for many years.
Barely a week before the onslaught of the bombings,. the director of National intelligence James Clapper emphasized in a testimony to the US Senate Armed Services Committee that Libya has significant air defense capabilities and that a no fly zone approach could potentially result in a protracted military operation:

Obama's policy is "aimed at the goal of having Gadhafi leave office," the national security adviser reiterated.
But Clapper's testimony underscored how difficult that could be.
He told the Senate committee that he thinks "Gadhafi is in this for the long haul" and that he doesn't think Gadhafi "has any intention ... of leaving."
Later, enumerating his reasons for believing that Gadhafi would prevail, Clapper said that the regime has more military supplies and can count on the army's best trained, "most robustly equipped" units, including the 32nd Brigade, which is commanded by Gadhafi's son, Khamis, and the 9th Brigade.
The bulk of its hardware comprises Russian-made air defenses, artillery, tanks and other vehicles, "and they appear more disciplined about how they treat and repair that equipment," Clapper continued.
Clapper disputed assertions that a no-fly zone could be quickly and easily imposed on Libya, saying Gadhafi commands the Middle East's second largest air defense system after Egypt's.
"They have a lot of Russian equipment, and there is a certain quality in numbers. Some of that equipment has fallen into the oppositionists' hands," he continued.
The system comprises about 31 surface-to-air missile sites and a radar complex that "is focused on protecting the (Mediterranean) coastline where are 80 or 85 percent of the population is," Clapper said. Gadhafi's forces also have "a large, large number" of shoulder-fired anti-aircraft missiles.

Army Gen. Ronald Burgess, the director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, endorsed Clapper's assessment, saying momentum was shifting to Gadhafi's forces after initially being with the opposition.
"Whether or not it has fully shifted to Gadhafi's side at this time in-country I think is not clear," Burgess said. "But we have now reached a state of equilibrium where ... the initiative, if you will, may be on the regime side."
Hours after Clapper spoke, Thomas Donilon, Obama's national security adviser, offered a different assessment, suggesting sharply diverging views between the White House and the U.S. intelligence community.
He said the intelligence chiefs' analysis was "static" and "unidimensional," based on the military balance of power, and failing to take into account both Gadhafi's growing isolation and international actions to boost his opponents. (White House, intel chief split on Libya assessment | McClatchy, March 11, 2011)

The foregoing statement suggests that Operation Odyssey Dawn could lead to a protracted drawn out war resulting in significant NATO-US losses.
NATO military setbacks were reported by Libyan sources from the very outset of the air campaign.
Within hours of the commencement of the bombings, Libyan sources (yet to be confirmed) pointed to the shooting down of three French jets. (See Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Breaking News: Libyan Hospitals Attacked. Libyan Source: Three French Jets Downed, Global Research, March 19, 2011).
The Libyan national TV network announced that a French fighter plane had been shot down near Tripoli. The French Army denied these reports:

"We reject the information that a French fighter plane was shot down in Libya. All the planes we sent on missions today returned to base" said the spokesman of the French Army, colonel Thierry Burkhard, quoted by Le Figaro." (Libya: A french fighter plane was shot down! The French Army denies this information, xiannet.net March 20, 2011)

Internal Libyan sources (to be confirmed) also reported on Sunday the downing of two Qatari military jets. According to Libyan reports, yet to be confirmed, a total of five French jets have been shot down. Three of these attacking French jets were, according to the reports, shot down in Tripoli. The other two French military jets were shot down while attacking Sirt (Surt/Sirte). (Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya, Libyan Sources Report Italian POWs Captured. Additional Coalition Jets Downed, Global Research, March 20, 2011)

[Magda Hassan]

Arab League splits with the west after just one day on No Fly Zone bombs. Looks like they thought a no fly zone actually meant no flying planes or bombs in that zone to protect civilians, such quaint old fashioned logical ideas. The spin meister will set them straight I'm sure.

Calling an emergency meeting one day after attending the first gathering of the coalition in Paris, Mr Moussa said that he agreed to the protection of civilians, not the bombardment of more civilians.

The support of the Arab League is central to the claim by David Cameron, Nicolas Sarkozy and Barack Obama that the operation has regional support. This supposedly makes it different from Iraq in 2003......Mr Moussa's statement throws that ambition into doubt.

No partner in this coalition wants to assume the leadership of fighting this campaign. The Americans are hiding behind the Europeans, and both are using the Arab League as cover. But whether they like it or not, each country involved will bear responsibility for how this ends. It may not be pretty.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/...rab-league

[Magda Hassan]

America's Hidden Hand Behind The UN Resolution For A No-fly Zone Over Libya

by Enver Masud

Global Research, March 21, 2011
The Wisdom Fund

The UN Security Council, spurred on by the United States, passed resolution 1973 (2011) authorizing a no-fly zone -- a euphemism for war -- over Libya.
According to Associated Press:

The resolution establishes "a ban on all flights in the airspace of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya in order to help protect civilians." It also authorizes UN member states to take "all necessary measures ... to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory."
The vote was 10-0 with five countries abstaining including Russia and China, which have veto power in the council, along with India, Germany and Brazil. The United States, France and Britain pushed for speedy approval.

Ostensibly, the resolution for a no-fly zone was requested by the Libyan rebel's Transitional National Council and the Arab League (AL).
Veteran Indian diplomat M K Bhadrakumar writes:

The plain truth is that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU) commanded AL to speak since they need a fig leaf to approach the United Nations Security Council. . . .
The Western powers had earlier mentioned the AL and African Union (AU) in the same breath as representing "regional opinion". Now it seems the AU isn't so important -- it has become an embarrassment. African leaders are proving to be tough nuts to crack compared to Arab playboy-rulers.

The Arab League resolution was rammed through by Amr Moussa, Secretary-General of the Arab League, who hopes to succeed Hosni Mubarak as Egypt's next president. Arab leaders, who depend upon the U.S. for their continued existence, were not hard to persuade.
Syria and Algeria (Algeria shares a longer border with Libya than does Tunisia), having opposed the imposition of a no-fly zone, apparently consented.
Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Prime Minister of Turkey, Nato's only Muslim member, said he opposed foreign intervention and called for an immediate ceasefire.
The Arab League vote gave the U.S. the cover it wanted. Bloomberg reported:

U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that since the Arab League backed a no-fly zone over Libya there has been a "sea change" in international opinion toward favoring the action. . . .
Russia and China, who have questioned a no-fly zone at the UN, are reconsidering after the Arab League statement on Saturday, Clinton said.

The United Kingdom and France, eager to get in on the plunder of yet another mainly Muslim state have been eager participants.
Award-winning, internationally syndicated columnist Eric Margolis had "reported for weeks that Britain's elite Special Air Service (SAS) has been rallying anti-Gadaffi forces in and around Benghazi, seizing desert oil installations, and helping attack pro-Gadaffi forces."
Libya has the largest proven oil reserves in Africa according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration.
French President Nicolas Sarkozy, facing a tough election, and accused by Muammar Gaddafi's son that Libya helped to finance his election campaign in 2007, took advantage of the opportunity created by the Libyan rebellion to divert attention from his own problems.
The behind-the-scene American role has been kept largely hidden from the public.
On March 16, 2011, I received a letter from Radwan A. Masmoudi, President, Center for the Study of Islam & Democracy (CSID), asking me to sign a letter urging President Obama:

. . . that with the recent unanimous vote of the League of Arab States, numerous calls for such action from states within the region, as well as wider calls from traditional American allies such as France and Britain for such action, legitimate sanction for the speedy imposition of a no-fly zone now exists and we call upon you now to assume a leading role in halting the horrific violence being perpetrated by Colonel Gaddafi's forces
. . . to create a coalition that will impose as quickly as possible a no-fly zone for all Libyan military aircraft over the full extent of northern Libyan airspace.

The letter was signed by hundreds of "scholars" first among whom were Larry Diamond, Director, Center on Democracy, Development, and the Rule of Law, Stanford University; John L. Esposito, Director, Al-Waleed Center for Muslim-Christian Understanding, Georgetown University; Akbar Ahmed, Ibn Khaldun Chair of Islamic Studies, American University; Francis Fukuyama, Institute for International Studies, Stanford University; Michele Dunne, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
I did not sign it, and informed Masmoudi that I oppose the no-fly zone.
With hundreds of signatures on the letter, why I was asked to sign is a mystery to me. The activities of CSID and its sponsors are less mysterious, but less well known to the public.
CSID, established in 1999, has as its mission to "educate the public concerning benefits of democracy in Islamic regions through conferences, publications and internet."
In its tax returns, CSID lists as its principle program accomplishments: democracy training workshops in Morocco, Tunisia, Jordan; establishing the Network of Democrats, publishing a newsletter on the status of democracy in the Arab world; organizing conferences, etc.
CSID appears to be funded entirely by the U.S. government -- when asked, Masmoudi did not deny it. One of its officers or employees, Radwan Ziadeh, lists his address at the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) in Washington, DC.
Zalmay Khalilzad, US Ambassador to Iraq, Afghanistan, and the United Nations -- who bears major responsibility for the disaster in Afghanistan and Iraq, is on NED's Board of Directors.
NED has spent millions of dollars promoting 'color' revolutions. "NED was established by the Reagan Administration in 1983, to do overtly, what the CIA had done covertly, in the words of one its legislative drafters, Allen Weinstein", according to Jonathan Mowat at the Centre for Research on Globalisation.
So when U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton said that since the Arab League backed a no-fly zone over Libya there has been a "sea change" in international opinion, she was basking in the result of NED's efforts to promote "democracy" in states that have resisted U.S. efforts to plunder them.
The creation of a new state encompassing the oil producing parts of Libya is a distinct possibility.
Libya, which has the highest standard of living in Africa, is about to encounter democracy American style -- the rich get richer, the poor get poorer.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?c...&aid=23835

[Magda Hassan]

Our top general shot down by No.10: War of words erupts as Army chief says we have no legal right to kill Gaddafi



By Tim Shipman , James Chapman and Ian Drury
Last updated at 2:07 AM on 22nd March 2011

• 
  

• Chief of Defence Staff rejects ministers' suggestions Libyan leader was assassination target
  
• Downing Street claims that killing Gaddafi would preserve lives of Libyan civilians
  
• U.S. warns that taking leader dead would be 'unwise' and risked undermining cohesion
  
• Tomahawk strike from submarine HMS Triumph reduces dictator's Tripoli compound to rubble
  

Britain's top general was embroiled in an extraordinary clash with Downing Street last night over the legality of a strike to kill Colonel Gaddafi.
No 10 slapped down Chief of the Defence Staff General Sir David Richards after he flatly rejected ministers' suggestions that the Libyan dictator was a legitimate target for assassination.
The public spat just days into the operation highlighted growing tensions about mission creep' in the assault on Gaddafi.

Mission muddle: General Richards and Defence Secretary Liam Fox arrive for a cabinet meeting at 10 Downing Street yesterday amid a public disagreement over targeting Gadaffi


Last night, as RAF Typhoon jets roared into action for the first time, David Cameron and Barack Obama insisted again that the dictator must go but that the aim of the assault was to protect civilians.
Number 10 sources insisted General Richards was simply wrong' to publicly suggest a UN resolution would not allow Gaddafi to be targeted directly if he was harming his own people.



The spat came as David Cameron battled to keep the support of the Arab League for the mission and ensure Turkey remained onside.

The Prime Minister also called for Libyan commanders still loyal to Gaddafi to put down your weapons and walk away from your tanks'.

Details also emerged of Britain's Tomahawk cruise missile attack on Gaddafi's presidential compound in Tripoli, destroying a military command and control centre, while Up to 800 Royal Marines were placed on standby to move to the Mediterranean.





There were also disputed claims that Gaddafi's sixth son Khamis was killed when a Libyan pilot deliberately crashed his jet into a barracks on Saturday.


Meanwhle, Britain abandoned a further raid by Tornado bombers when SAS soldiers on the ground warned that civilians and journalists were being used as human shields.
And Russian premier Vladimir Putin provocatively likened the UN-backed mission to the medieval crusades.
However, it was General Richards who caused consternation in Whitehall when he appeared before TV cameras yesterday to insist Gaddafi was not a target.
Absolutely not,' he said. It is not allowed under the UN resolution and it is not something I want to discuss any further.'
Downing Street and Foreign Office officials were quick to dispute that saying assassinating Gaddafi would be legal because it would preserve civilian lives in Libya.
Foreign Secretary William Hague had refused to rule out targeting Gaddafi, echoing comments made by Defence Secretary Liam Fox on Sunday.
The Government also came under fire from U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates, who described the calls for Gaddafi's killing unwise'.
He warned that it could undermine the cohesion of the international coalition supporting the no-fly zone.
If we start adding additional objectives then I think we create a problem in that respect,' he said. I also think it is unwise to set as specific goals things that you may or may not be able to achieve.'
One senior government source said: There has not been some major falling out, but General Richards did say the wrong thing.
He is right that regime change would be illegal, but there are obviously circumstances where it would be legal to target Gaddafi if his actions are harming civilians.
It would be so if, for example, we were taking out a compound because we knew he was inside and directing a campaign against his people.'
The Tomahawk missile strike on Gaddafi's compound was carried out by the submarine HMS Triumph.

British special forces operating deep behind enemy lines identified the three-storey building in Tripoli as a crucial target.
And soon afterwards, it was reduced to rubble by a precision strike from the 1,000lb weapons. The block was about 150 yards from the tents which the Libyan leader uses as his official residence.
It is not known where the dictator was at the time of the bombing but he has not been seen or heard since the attack. He may have fled into the desert. Senior government sources described the hugely symbolic strike at the heart of his regime as a shot across his bows'.
The target was agreed around four days ago by British military personnel in concert with the U.S. and the French. It was not the result of specific actionable intelligence' that Gaddafi was present.



Destruction: A blackened wreck from Gaddafi's bombed-out armoured column outside Benghazi




Triumphant: Rebels and civilians climb aboard a Gaddafi tank to celebrate yesterday

In a six-hour Commons debate on the crisis, Mr Cameron said he would not get into the issue of which targets in Libya were or were not legitimate.
But he issued a dramatic appeal to Gaddafi's forces to defect to the opposition. Put down your weapons, walk away from your tanks, stop obeying orders from this regime,' he urged.
General Richards' opposition to targeting Gaddafi risks a repeat of the standoff between Gordon Brown's government and former Army chief Lord Dannatt.



General Richards put himself at odds with Dr Fox, who twice at the weekend said Colonel Gaddafi was a legitimate target' and that it would be a possibility' to launch a strike to take him out with bunker buster bombs.

Dr Fox was backed up by Mr Hague, who yesterday refused to rule out targeting Gaddafi. It all depends on how people behave,' he said.





Downing Street and the Foreign Office both reacted with irritation to General Richards' comments.
A Foreign Office official added: The Government's position is what the Prime Minister said, not what the Chief of the Defence staff said'
James Arbuthnot, Tory chairman of the Commons Defence Committee, said Mr Cameron had told him that the aim of protecting Libya's civilians could not be achieved without the removal of Gaddafi.
He said: We won't be able to protect the civilians in my opinion and obviously the Prime Minister's and that of most leaders of the countries in the region while Gaddafi remains in place.'
But there were also divisions in government. Sources said that Attorney General Dominic Grieve spoke to Dr Fox, encouraging him to tone down his rhetoric.

Labour leader Ed Miliband backed Mr Cameron's decision to start air strikes but condemned the mixed messages from the Government.






He told MPs: We all know ambiguity about the case for intervention is one of the biggest problems we had in Iraq. We cannot afford mission creep, including in our public pronouncements.'
Shadow defence spokesman Jim Murphy said Dr Fox's comments were irresponsible in many ways'. In a scathing aside, he added: Fox should be put back in his box'.
Cameron's bid to keep Arab allies on board

By TIM SHIPMAN
David launched a charm offensive yesterday, amid pointed criticism of his Libyan policy from Russia and wavering support from the Arab League.
The Prime Minister phoned Amr Moussa, the secretary-general of the Arab League, yesterday morning, a day after Mr Moussa had condemned the bombardment of civilians'.
[B]LESSONS LEARNED FROM IRAQ AS MPS TOLD LEGAL CASE FOR FORCE IS CLEAR
[/B]

Attorney General Dominic Grieve has declared that the deployment of British forces in Libya has a clear and unequivocal' basis in international law.
In an unprecedented step, the Government published a summary of Mr Grieve's advice on the legality of the conflict.
However, the note included no details of the more difficult question of whether a targeted strike designed to kill Colonel Gaddafi would be within the law.
Its publication ahead of last night's Commons vote was an attempt by the Coalition to draw a distinction with the Iraq conflict.
Following years of controversy over the legality of Tony Blair's war, and the eventual leaking of his Attorney General Lord Goldsmith's shifting advice, the full legal opinion of Mr Grieve was distributed to each Cabinet minister.
Downing Street says his advice on the intervention will not itself be published in full, but a summary was released to inform the MPs' debate on the conflict.
UN Security Council Resolution 1973 authorising the military action was adopted under Chapter VII of the 1945 Charter of the United Nations.
The Attorney General has been consulted and Her Majesty's Government is satisfied that this Chapter VII authorisation to use all necessary measures provides a clear and unequivocal legal basis for deployment of UK forces and military assets to achieve the resolution's objectives,' the summary of Mr Grieve's advice said.

In this resolution the Security Council has determined that the situation in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya constitutes a threat to international peace and security.
The Security Council has adopted the resolution as a measure to maintain or restore international peace and security under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, which provides for such action by air, sea and land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security.'
However, the note did not touch on the legality of an assassination attempt on Gaddafi. Mr Grieve is said to have been alarmed by the bellicose rhetoric of Defence Secretary Liam Fox on such an operation over the weekend.



Mr Cameron was also facing resistance from Turkey, which like Libya has a large Muslim population.
Turkey's unease is holding up the transfer of control of the mission from the U.S. to Nato.
But there was outright condemnation from Russian premier Vladimir Putin, who gave fuel to Muslim critics of the attacks by branding the UN resolution backing the use of force a resolution on which Russia abstained a return to the Crusades.
The resolution is defective and flawed,' said Mr Putin. It allows everything. It resembles medieval calls for crusades.'
Officials in London pointed out that such criticism should be seen in the context of the £2billion of oil deals Russia has with Libya.
Mr Moussa, meanwhile, said that while he supports a no-fly zone, the Arab League was against aerial bombing in principle'.
A No 10 spokesman said: The PM stressed the care we were taking with targeting to avoid civilian casualties.
The two leaders agreed that the protection of civilians was paramount. Amr Moussa welcomed the update and said that he supported UN Security Council Resolution 1973.
The Prime Minister concluded that they were "on the same page".'
Officials said Arab defence officials could be invited to join future meetings of Nato ambassadors in Brussels. Mr Cameron and Barack Obama both want to hand control of the mission from the U.S. to Nato.
But that move is facing resistance from Turkey, a Nato member. The North Atlantic Council will meet today to thrash out the differences as every Nato country must agree the plans.
Yesterday, Mr Cameron called Turkish prime minister Tayyip Erdogan, who called for air strikes to end as soon as possible'.
If Nato is going into operation we have some conditions,' Mr Erdogan said. Nato should go in with the recognition and acknowledgement that Libya belongs to the Libyans, not for the distribution of its underground resources and wealth.'
Turkey's foreign minister Ahmet Davutoglu said legal procedures for establishing a coalition were not sufficiently respected' by Mr Cameron.
Mr Cameron responded: There are millions in the Arab world who frankly want to know that the UN, the U.S., the UK, the French [and] the international community care about their suffering and their oppression.'
Defence officials say Qatari warplanes are to join the no-fly zone operation and the United Arab Emirates is being pressured to help too.
The tensions come amid signs of strained relations with the White House. U.S. Defence Secretary Robert Gates yesterday described British claims that Gaddafi could be assassinated as unwise'. He had previously condemned Mr Cameron's calls for a no-fly zone as loose talk'.
Mr Cameron has not directly discussed the military action with President Obama since it began on Saturday an omission that would have been unthinkable under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown.
A senior Whitehall source said: Relations with the Americans are perfectly fine with the odd little wrinkle that often pops up. The Turks have been one of the slower partners in the convoy but we think they are getting there.'
A No 10 source insisted Turkish problems over Nato were not likely to be a deal-breaker'.




The PM gently touched him on the knee in gratitude


By QUENTIN LETTS

Amid many clever speeches about UN resolutions and paragraph subsection this and the great game' of global diplomacy, big Kris Hopkins (Con, Keighley) lumbered to his feet. Mr Hopkins is built like a Californian redwood tree. JCB buckets for hands.

He peered at his notes. The House has silver-tongued speakers but hesitant Hopkins is not one of them. Yet the speech he gave two hours into yesterday's Libya debate a speech, like many, of ginger-footed support will linger long in the memory.

He explained how charred a body becomes when a man is caught in a war-zone fireball. He recalled corpses of IRA men killed by modern guns.
Shredded' was his word. He described how, in his days as a young infantryman (Duke of Wellington's regiment) he was yelled at by his sergeant to stab a bale of hay, i.e. how to rip someone apart.



So many interventions: David Cameron addresses the House of Commons where MPs debated military action taken against Libya

Mr Hopkins deplored armchair warmongers who lust for blood without comprehending the horrors of warfare. But he supported this action against Gaddafi. He did so because the UN had at last shown some resolve and because inaction was more dangerous.

[B]IRAQ A 'RUNNING SORE' FOR BLAIR GOVERNMENT
[/B]

Lord Goldsmith's legal advice over the Iraq invasion of 2003 became a running sore for the Labour government.
Former prime minister Tony Blair refused repeated calls to make details of the then Attorney General's advice public as the controversy over the legality of his misadventure in Iraq raged on.
Eventually, Mr Blair government's hand was forced as some sections of Lord Goldsmith's advice were leaked.
In an original memo to Mr Blair, written in January 2003, Lord Goldsmith suggested UN resolutions did not justify the use of force and that a further resolution would be required.
But in his final advice to the government written two months later, in March, when the invasion began Lord Goldsmith decided that the use of force in Iraq was lawful.
The reasons for his change of heart have formed a key part of the Chilcot inquiry into the war.


The House listened in silence. Then David Cameron rose from his frontbench seat and walked towards the back of the Chamber, where the Keighley giant was sitting in a pile of post-speech exhaustion. I have not seen a Prime Minister do this before. Mr Cameron approached Mr Hopkins and quietly touched him on the knee to congratulate him on his speech.

Properly, the PM stayed and listened to the House. Tony Blair did not often do that. It meant having to endure varying standards of oratory, from the platitudes of Katy Clark (Lab, N Ayrshire) to the pessimism of Graham Allen (Lab, Nottingham N) and the converted zeal of Jo Swinson (Lib Dem, E Dunbartonshire).

She had marched against the Iraq war. Yet she was all in favour of fighting Gaddafi. Not acting is not a neutral position,' said Miss Swinson.
Later, I saw a note passed to her from Mr Cameron's PPS, Desmond Swayne. Miss Swinson looked across to Mr Swayne with gratitude. The schmooze was on.
Edward Miliband's speech was, like Swiss lobster, better avoided.

Mr Cameron took so many interventions that his speech felt more PMQs. Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Con, Kensington) was at his most lawyerly. Jack Straw (Lab, Blackburn) spoke of Tony Blair's doctrine of responsibility to protect'. There was certainly something of this in Mr Cameron's approach.

Jim Dowd (Lab, Lewisham W) made a pub bore's speech, one which challenged even Mr Cameron's devotion to the debate. Michael Meacher (Lab, Oldham W) deplored the hawkishness of the Defence Secretary, Liam Fox. He was not the only one to take a pop at Fox.
Sir Ming Campbell (Lib Dem, NE Fife) gave a speech which, so far as I know, may have been penned by Rudyard Kipling. Be in no doubt,' cried Sir Ming, thrice.

At one point he seemed to speak of Colonel Muggafi'. Oops! Tooth glue not working again. Sir Ming argued that if Gaddafi was running Libya's war effort he was a legitimate target for the sharp end of a missile.

Critics of the action were few. More striking was the reluctance of younger Tory MPs to be gung-ho. Another ex soldier, Ben Wallace (Con, Wyre) posited the troubling little thought: What happens if the Libyan rebels start committing war crimes? Elfyn Llwyd, for the Nationalists, urged the PM not to allow mission creep'. Mr Cameron nodded.




Gordon Brown (Lab, Kirkcaldy & Cowdenbeath) was again absent. He had time to go on Red Nose Day television the other day. Does Mr Brown have no grasp of his duties as an ex-prime minister? They include attending parliamentary debates such as this.
Reassess our arms sales policy,' said Jeremy Corbyn (Lab, Islington N). The sooner it ends, the better,' said David Winnick (Lab, Walsall N). No one could disagree.

Behind Mr Cameron was the magnificent form of Keith Simpson (Con, Broadland), William Hague's PPS. The moustachioed Simpson, who at one point flourished a red handkerchief the size of a boy scout's groundsheet, is a military historian.

He held in his hands Afghantsy', a book about Russia's 1979 invasion of Afghanistan. Let us hope our foray over North Africa does not end like that.