Obama critical of UK lack of follow up action after Gadaffi overthrown

In an interview in the April issue of Atlantic, Obama lashes out at David Cameron for losing interest in developments in Libya after the coalition bombing campaign.

Rather than being burdened with being the leader in military interventions after problems and casualties in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Obama administration has attempted when possible to ensure that other countries lead interventions and serve as proxies fighting for U.S. interests in return for a share in power and any benefits that might result.

In the case of Libya, it was countries such as the UK and France who were anxious to overthrow Gadaffi and Obama encouraged them to take the lead. While the UK and France did support the campaign to degrade the power of Gadaffi's forces, after the war was over, they lost interest, allowing the present chaotic situation to develop.

Obama made his criticism of the UK and David Cameron in a long article and interview in The Atlantic by Jeffrey Goldberg, a national correspondent for the magazine. Obama told Goldberg that free riders aggravated him. Obama even warned the UK that if it did not increase its spending on defense to at least 2 percent of GDP, then the UK will no longer be able to claim a "special relationship" with the U.S. Obama told UK Prime Minister David Cameron: "You have to pay your fair share." The UK has since reached the two percent spending level on defense.

Obama insisted the anti-Gadaffi campaign receive a UN mandate, and European and Gulf countries should be actively involved in the coalition, although with its unique capabilities the U.S. would be a key player. Other countries, however, were expected to carry their weight. Obama said:'And we worked with our defense teams to ensure that we could execute a strategy without putting boots on the ground and without a long-term military commitment in Libya. So we actually executed this plan as well as I could have expected: We got a UN mandate, we built a coalition, it cost us $1 billion—which, when it comes to military operations, is very cheap.

We averted large-scale civilian casualties, we prevented what almost surely would have been a prolonged and bloody civil conflict. And despite all that, Libya is a mess.'

Obama claims he had too much faith in the Europeans investing more in followup operations. For his part, Cameron defended the coalition Libya action in December 2015, telling the Spectator magazine that Libya was better off without Gadaffi: “What we were doing was preventing a mass genocide. Then, as you say, the coalition helped those on the ground to get rid of the Gaddafi regime and it’s very disappointing that there hasn’t been an effective successor regime.”

RAF planes already flying surveillance sorties over Libya

The Royal Air Force (RAF) is reportedly already flying missions over Libya even prior to any invitation from the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA), whose term has not even started.

Before the term of the GNA begins it has to gain a vote of confidence from the internationally-recognized House of Representatives (HoR) in Tobruk. The last proposed government was rejected as being too large. The HoR gave the GNA 10 days to come up with a new list but that deadline has passed. The deadline now is February 14.

Many foreign nations are planning for military intervention but are waiting for the GNA to ask them in to grant them legitimacy. Those waiting include the United States, which wants to launch a third front against the Islamic State in Libya in addition to those in Iraq and Syria.

The report on the RAF sorties comes from Tobias Ellwood, the foreign office minister who said the flights are to prepare for a possible invitation to intervene by the yet to be established Government of National Accord. Just recently the Egyptian foreign minister has warned against foreign intervention before the GNA is formed and makes a request. The African Union has expressed a similar view. Ellwood said UK troops would not go to Libya to fight the Islamic State themselves but could help train the Libyan army on the invitation of the GNA. Ellwood refused to give any details on the UK sorties or whether they involved drones. Elmwood claimed there were less than 5,000 Islamic State supporters in Libya. Elmwood admitted what many analysts overlook and that is that the threat from the Islamic State is not as great a priority to be addressed for Libyan factions as for many western nations. The IS threat, he said, was not spurring rival factions to come to an agreement. Indeed, it is foreign powers with the aid of the UN that are pressuring Libyans to act and so far to no avail. Labour Party head, Jeremy Corbyn, has written to Prime Minister David Cameron insisting that he should get approval from the parliament for any military action in Libya. There is already ample evidence that Special Forces from several countries are operating in Libya.

As well as the RAF sorties that are presumably simply for surveillance, there have been a number of bombings by unidentified aircraft of the city of Derna. The city is held by a group of jihadists the Derna Shura Council who are battling the Islamic State near the city and nearby mountains. Recently a hospital was hit and damaged and there were civilian casualties. There seems to be little press interest in finding out who carried out these attacks which far from damaging the Islamic State harms the groups who drove them out of Derna. These attacks and the surveillance missions of the RAF surely violate Libya's sovereignty. Turkey shot down a Russian plane just for violating its airspace without any aggressive actions.

The Islamic State is preparing for bombing and other attacks both by fortifying their main base in Sirte but also by sending fighters to the south to who knows where. Reuters claims:Groups of Islamic State fighters are quitting their bases in Libya fearing Western air strikes and heading south, posing a new threat to countries in Africa's Sahel region including Niger and Chad, officials and intelligence sources said.

The west may concentrate on trying to retake Sirte and the adjacent areas while most Islamic State fighters may be already spread out thinly throughout Niger, Chad, and elsewhere creating havoc.

Read more: http://www.digitaljournal.com/news/world/op-ed-british-military-planes-are-already-flying-sorties-over-libya/article/457281#ixzz40RftzfMa

Egyptian president el_Sisi demands that UK finish its mission in Libya

- Egyptian President Abdel el-Sisi has called on members of NATO to help rebuild Libya. The UN has been promoting a unity government based upon an agreement between the two rival governments. El-Sisi says nothing about this.

+ Add Image

According to the Telegraph(UK) Sisi will demand that Cameron complete the "mission" he began in Libya in order to "prevent the country becoming another Islamist-dominated state like Syria". A bizarre statement. The western intervention in Libya, with participation by the UK, released Islamists both moderates and radicals from the iron grip of the Gadaffi regime, The west did not object to Gadaffi's repression of Islamists. The CIA even rendered suspects to Libyan jails on occasion. No doubt what Sisi means is that as well as getting rid of Gadaffi, the west should have also ensured that they put the newly freed Islamists back in jail, and barred them from running for office as they are in Egypt, especially the Muslim Brotherhood. This is what Khalfa Haftar, the commander of the internationally-recognized House of Representatives armed forces, an admirer of Sisi, would like to see happen.

El-Sisi said:"Libya is a danger that threatens all of us. If there is no government then this only creates a vacuum where extremists can prosper, It was a mission that was not completely accomplished... We must support all efforts to help the Libyan people and the Libyan economy. We need to stop the flow of funds and weapons and foreign fighters to the extremists. All the members of NATO – including Britain – who took part in the mission to overthrow Qaddafi need to give their help,"

Sisi should be buoyed by the fact that the UK already had plans to intervene in Libya back in August to combat the Islamic State. There are a whole group of western nations just waiting for the formation of a unity government that will give them permission to intervene.

All of a sudden, all the cheerleaders for a unity government are quiet. Dialogue talks that were to take place over a week ago never took place. Bernardino Leon, the UN's Great Shepherd of this year-long peace process, is departing as of Friday to take a well-paying job training diplomats in the UAE, a country that has always strongly supported Haftar and the HoR government, even to the point of bombing Tripoli for them. Perhaps Haftar will now be able to push for a military council to rule Libya and the west can help Haftar and his Operation Dignity clear Libya of Islamists, including the forces of the rival General National Congress government.

UK should be ready to intervene in Libya Prime Minister Cameron claims

London - British Prime Minister David Cameron claims the UK should be ready to fight terrorist groups anywhere in the world. He is drawing up plans for defeating Islamic State forces inside Libya..

+ Add Image	1 of 2

The Telegraph reports Cameron has ordered officials to plan for a new intervention in Libya, which he claims has become a haven for IS jihadists. The gunman who recently killed 30 tourists in Tunisia was trained by IS in Libya. Actually, the Islamic State lost control of its original stronghold the city of Derna in eastern Libya. It was driven out by an umbrella group of Islamists who now have control of the city. IS fighters have been driven out into the nearby mountains. The only significant area they control is the city of Sirte and surrounding area. However, they launch suicide attacks in many areas

Cameron is flying out of the UK today to a four-day trade mission to South East Asia. He will offer UK expertise to both Malaysia and Indonesia to help them fight terrorism. Cameron also wants to extend the UK bombing campaign into Syria to attack IS positions there, as the US is doing.

Cameron believes that the UK must be ready to return to Libya to confront what he calls the murderous "death cult" of the IS jihadists: “Isil is one of the biggest threats our world has faced. Britain can offer expertise on practical counter-terrorism work – dealing with the threat from foreign fighters and investigating potential terrorist plots. .We will only defeat these brutal terrorists if we take action at home, overseas and online and if we unite with countries around the world against this common enemy.”Britain could provide specialists to help authorities organize security, and military trainers to train local forces in combat techniques to confront the Islamic State.

At present there are two rival governments and main military forces in Libya. There is no sign yet of the proposed Government of National Accord. The present agreement has been signed only by one government, the internationally-recognized House of Representatives based in Tobruk. Neither the Libya Dawn forces of the Tripoli government nor the commander of the Tobruk forces, Khalifa Haftar, have accepted the agreement brokered by the UN. Both Haftar and the commander of the HoR air force have rejected the deal and refused to stop fighting even though both are named as subject to sanctions by the EU. Is the UK going to coordinate its actions with commanders under EU sanctions? A foreign office spokesperson said that the immediate priority was to support a "ceasefire and a stable political settlement". Neither side's military has agreed to a ceasefire or even to talk to one another. The existing political settlement is a recipe for disaster with only one of two rival governments agreeing to it. There is almost universal praise for the document that is almost bound to exacerbate the civil war if not amended. Yet the UK and no doubt other western countries are anxious to intervene again in Libya. The main IS positions remaining in Libya are in an area controlled by the Tripoli government.

Last time around, the UK spent 13 times more on bombing than on rebuilding the country afterwards. The eight-month intervention cost about 320 million pounds. To rebuild and stabilize the country after the campaign the UK spent only 25 million pounds. Now it is time to repeat the damage and leave the Libyans to pay for rebuilding their country.

In UK election debate Liberal Democrat Clegg shines again.

Although not so clearly a winner this time around he still seemed to do very well and was perhaps even best. The Conservative leader improved quite a bit. Although Clegg wants to distance UK policy somewhat from following the US line on foreign policy he still did not commit to any immediate withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan. He is just making some rhetorical flourishes to woo the anti-US anti-Afghanistan voters. This is from npr.

In U.K. Debate, Outside Candidate Shines Again
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS


Nick Clegg proved he wasn't a one-hit wonder in Britain's second election debate Thursday, holding his own against Labour's Prime Minister Gordon Brown and the Conservatives' David Cameron over thorny issues such as Afghanistan, the Catholic sex-abuse scandal and the special relationship with the United States.

An initial poll gave Clegg a slight edge in the debate, but it appeared to be close to a three-way tie. Still, Clegg managed to keep some of his political stardust -- respondents said the Liberal Democrats' 43-year-old leader seemed the most honest.

Clegg shook up the race last week, emerging as a clear winner after giving a smooth and confident performance in Britain's first U.S.-styled election debate and boosting his party's profile.

Thursday's debate came as dozens of anti-war protesters and other activists clashed with police outside the studio hosting the prime-time duel. Pro-Palestinian groups outside protested Israeli incursions in Gaza. Others held placards that read "Troops Home!" There are some 10,000 British troops still stationed in Afghanistan.

It was the closest Britain has come to the famous 1960 Nixon-Kennedy debate -- every grimace and blemish were seen in high-definition television format. The candidates' performances make the razor-close May 6 election even harder to predict.

Polls suggest that no party will win an outright majority. That situation could turn the Liberal Democrats into a kingmaker, bartering with both Labour and the Conservative for things they want -- namely electoral changes that could weaken Britain's traditional two-party system.

Rivals Compared To Children

Brown was on the attack for most of the debate, ridiculing Clegg and Cameron -- both 16 years his junior -- and at one point comparing them to his children. He also lashed out at Clegg, accusing him of being anti-American, and going after Cameron for being "anti-European."

"These two guys remind me of my two young boys squabbling at bathtime, squabbling about referendums on the EU when what we need is jobs and growth and recovery," said Brown, 59. "I'm afraid David is anti-European, Nick is anti-American and both are out of touch with reality."

Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats voted against the U.S.-led Iraq war and who has questioned British "subservience" to U.S. interests, denied he was anti-American, but said Britain should reevaluate how it deals with its trans-Atlantic ally.

"It's an immensely important special relationship, but it shouldn't be a one-way street," he said. "We shouldn't always do what our American friends tell us to do."

An automated telephone poll taken by ComRes after the debate showed that 2,691 viewers favored Clegg by a tiny margin. About a third of viewers believed that Clegg won the debate, while 30 percent believed that Brown or Cameron won. The margin of error for that sample size is plus or minus 2 percentage points.

Cameron, who gave a lackluster performance in last week's debate, appeared to learn from his mistakes -- he looked directly at the camera and seemed more confident Thursday. He almost lost his temper when he accused Brown of allowing campaign leaflets that suggested a Conservative government would cut benefits for the elderly.

"These lies you are getting from Labour are pure and simple lies," he said. "I have seen these lies and they make me very, very angry."

Divisive Issues

Both Labour and the Conservatives voted for Britain to go to war in Iraq, a stance that has hurt them with anti-war sentiment still strong in Britain. The Labour Party, which has been in power for 13 years, lost many seats in the 2005 general election when voters cast protest ballots against Tony Blair's decision to lead Britain into Iraq.

Afghanistan, the latest nettlesome mission, in which 280 British troops have died, is now one of Britain's longest and most costly conflicts, draining government coffers as the country tries to recover from its worst recession since World War II.

Clegg criticized the strategy in Afghanistan and said troops needed better equipment. The party would support other operations if they were in the interests of Britain but, "If you put soldiers into harm's way, you either do the job properly or don't do it at all," he said.

An audience member asked whether the leaders backed Pope Benedict XVI's visit to Britain in September, and if they supported the church's stance on the sex-abuse scandal, condoms, homosexuality and stem cell research.

All three men said they supported the visit, which is due to cost taxpayers some $22.5 million.

Cameron was most definitive, however, on other differences with the church, saying the church has "very serious work to do to unearth and come to terms with some of the appalling things that have happened."

Clegg, a former member of the European Parliament, once backed Britain adopting the euro and has talked about forging stronger ties with Europe. He stressed Thursday that Britain needs cooperation from other European countries if progress is to be made on terrorism, immigration, climate change and bank regulation.

Cameron has long been a euro-skeptic and stood apart from both Clegg and Brown on Thursday when he suggested again there should be a referendum allowing British people to decide how they feel about being a part of the European Union.

Clegg is unlikely to become prime minister because Britain's electoral system is not proportional so parties must win the majority of districts not the popular vote. This puts smaller and newer parties at a disadvantage. Most core voters still either vote Conservative or Labour.

Candidates managed to get across their campaign mantras throughout the debates -- with the Conservatives warning that a hung Parliament and a coalition government could hurt the pound and Britain's credit rating and Brown insisting that a government shake-up could jeopardize an economic recovery.

The British electorate has reached an all-time low for trust in politicians after an expenses scandal last year tarred all three major parties.