United States Africa Command

Public Affairs Office

29 March 2011

USAFRICOM - related news stories

TOP NEWS RELATED TO U.S. AFRICA COMMAND AND AFRICA

Libya: AFRICOM's Combat Christening (ISN)

(Libya) The current intervention underway in Libya is the inaugural combat mission for
the US military's AFRICOM. While the Command's professed primary objective has
been to strengthen security cooperation with African countries, many in sub-Saharan
Africa see a more ominous agenda at work.

Obama Defends Libya Fight (Wall Street Journal)

(Libya) President Barack Obama made his case for military intervention in Libya in a
speech to the nation on Monday, saying the action he directed was in U.S. interests and
had already succeeded in preventing a massacre of "horrific scale.''

Obama Libya Speech: Striking For What Was Unsaid As Much As Said (NPR)
(Libya) President Obama's Monday night speech on Libya was probably as striking for
what he didn't say as much as what he did say.

2nd UPDATE: Obama's Speech Draws Praise, Questions, Criticism In Congress (Wall
Street Journal)
(Libya) U.S. President Barack Obama's address to the nation about the rationale for an
intervention in Libya drew an array of reactions at the U.S. Capitol, mixing pride with
unease and reflecting the lack of a coherent position among either party over the
military action.

U.S. Gives Its Air Power Expansive Role in Libya (NYT)

(Libya) Even as President Obama on Monday described a narrower role for the United
States in a NATO-led operation in Libya, the American military has been carrying out
an expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan Army to turn
against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

US: Allied Airstrikes Help Libyan Rebels Indirectly (VOA)

(Libya) The U.S. military says coalition air strikes in Libya, under the United Nations
Security Council mandate, have helped the rebels advance toward the capital, Tripoli,
and that the attacks continue to hamper the Libyan army's ability to control, deploy and
supply its forces.
Libyan rebels push toward Gaddafi’s home town (Washington Post)
(Libya) Libyan rebels came under heavy fire as they pushed toward Moammar
Gaddafi’s home town on the Mediterranean coast Monday, setting up a potentially
crucial battle in the six-week-old uprising.

Rebels Facing Tough Fight for Sirte (IPS)

(Libya) Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi are resisting an advance by Libyan rebels
towards the embattled Libyan leader's hometown of Sirte in the fiercest clashes since
the start of a sweeping offensive that has brought a string of coastal towns under
opposition control.

Libyan Rebels Aim to Revive Oil Exports (NYT)

(Libya) After seizing control of critical oil fields and terminals in eastern Libya over the
weekend, Libyan rebels are now trying to sell oil in international markets, potentially
raising hundreds of millions of dollars to buy weapons and supplies.

Why Libya's unrest could threaten the Sahel region (Christian Science Monitor)
(Libya) African leaders in the Sahel – the coast-to-coast belt of countries just south of
Libya – are afraid that Libya's unrest will disrupt the region's balance of power and put
arms in the hands of rebel militias.

U.S. Gives Its Air Power Expansive Role in Libya (NYT)

(Libya) Even as President Obama on Monday described a narrower role for the United
States in a NATO-led operation in Libya, the American military has been carrying out
an expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan Army to turn
against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

Battle Erupts For Key Ivory Coast Town (VOA)

(Ivory Coast) Intense fighting has erupted in western Ivory Coast, where fighters loyal
to two rival presidents are battling for control of Duekoue, a strategic town.

South Sudan: Will Freedom Just Lead to Civil War? (Time)

(Sudan) Fears of a bloody birth for the world's newest country, South Sudan, are
becoming ever more real after weeks of battles between its autonomous government
and their opponents. Hundreds have died in fighting between South Sudan authorities
and rebel militias. Now five rebel groups in four of the country's ten states appear to
have united under one name, the Southern Sudan Democratic Movement, and one
commander, George Athor. "There is a need for the world to know who we are," Athor
told TIME via satellite phone from an undisclosed location. "Our manifesto will come
out very soon."

Africa: Last Frontier for Business Increasingly Abandoned by the U.S. Department of
Commerce (AllAfrica)
(Pan Africa) Less than two years ago, President Barack Obama and First Lady Michelle
Obama made headlines as they landed in Accra, Ghana. The July 2009 visit was historic,
coming only months after Obama was sworn in as our first African-American president.
For some Americans, media coverage of the trip was a wake-up call that showed Africa
as a coveted partner for businesses from South America, Europe, the Middle East, India
and, especially, China.

UN News Service Africa Briefs

Full Articles on UN Website
 Fresh clashes break out in key Ivorian town, UN mission reports
 Senior UNICEF official urges Southern Sudan to prioritize children’s issues
 Joint UN-African team finds North Darfur villages deserted after earlier clashes
 Resource-rich Africa well placed to transition to ‘green economy’ – UN official
 UN anti-crime chief highlights Kenya’s role in tackling regional security threats
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
UPCOMING EVENTS OF INTEREST:

WHEN/WHERE: Thursday, April 7, 2011; 9:30am; Dirksen Senate Office Building

Room SD-106
WHAT: Armed Services: Testimony on AFRICOM
WHO:  Full Committee; General Carter F. Ham to testify
Info: http://armed-services.senate.gov/e_witnesslist.cfm?id=5073
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FULL ARTICLE TEXT

Libya: AFRICOM's Combat Christening (ISN)

By John CK Daly
March 28, 2011
After World War II, the US military carved up the globe outside its borders into a series
of Unified Combatant Commands (UCC) to project military power and safeguard
interests abroad. The UCC "areas of responsibility" include United States Pacific
Command (PACOM, founded 1947 in the wake of the Pacific War), United States
European Command (EUCOM, founded the same year), United States Southern
Command (SOCOM, founded in 1963 in the wake of deteriorating relations with Cuba)
and United States Central Command (CENTCOM, 1983), covering most of Eurasia.

In 2008 they were joined by a fifth UCC when the United States Africa Command
(AFRICOM) became operational. Except for Egypt, which remains under CENTCOM
administration, AFRICOM is responsible for overseeing US military operations and
relations across the whole African continent and the island nations of Cape Verde, São
Tomé and Príncipe, the Comoros, Madagascar, Mauritius and the Seychelles. Prior to
the establishment of AFRICOM, responsibility for continental Africa was divided
between EUCOM and CENTCOM, while PACOM had responsibility for Madagascar,
the Comoros and Mauritius.
AFRICOM was established with the stated intention of strengthening "security
cooperation with Africa and creating opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our
partners in Africa. Africa Command will enhance our efforts to bring peace and security
to the people of Africa and promote our common goals of development, health,
education, democracy, and economic growth in Africa."

The Libya conflict marks AFRICOM's inaugural military combat operation. The Africa
Command joins CENTCOM military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan as the third
major US combat operation in the Muslim world in the last decade.

Promoting security - or a scramble for resources?

Some analysts have pointed to the creation of a specific Africa Command as testimony
to the growing strategic importance of Africa to US interests. Terrorism has ranked
among Washington's chief security concerns on the continent in recent decades, driven
primarily by the 1998 attacks on the US embassies in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania and
Nairobi, Kenya and the post-9/11 global "war on terror". Following 9/11, the US
military undertook anti-terrorist operations in the Sahel (the east-to-west belt between
the Sahara to the north and the Sudanian Savanna to the south) and established a
military presence in Djibouti. US troops have also helped train anti-terrorism forces in
Algeria, Chad, Kenya, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Tanzania and Uganda among
other countries.

AFRICOM detractors have remained skeptical about the Command's true intentions,
arguing that furthering access to Africa's vast natural resources, particularly oil, and
offsetting China's expansive investment in the continent over the last decade are among
the US' chief strategic interests there. Indeed, Africa contains tremendous mineral
wealth, huge hydro-electrical power reserves and significantly underdeveloped
offshore resources. The majority of the world's diamonds, gold and chromium are
produced in countries at the southern end of the continent. Africa's mineral riches
include copper, bauxite, phosphate, uranium, tin, iron ore, cobalt and titanium.

Of these myriad resources, however, nothing has captured foreign interests as much as
oil. By 2013, African oil production is projected to rise to 10.7-11.4 million barrels per
day (bpd), and by 2018 to 12.4-14.5 million bpd. The US is currently Nigeria's biggest oil
importer, and the National Intelligence Council predicts that imports from the Gulf of
Guinea will increase to more than 25 percent of all US imports by 2015.

The US, however, is in increasing competition with China for access to Africa's vast
natural resource holdings. In fact, China has overtaken the US to become Africa's
largest trading partner, particularly in oil, accounting for 73 percent of African exports.
In 1995, Chinese imports from Africa were worth $1.4 billion; 11 years later, their value
had soared to $28.7 billion, a 2,000 percent increase.
Regional perceptions

From its founding, African perceptions about AFRICOM's ultimate intentions were
mixed, and opinion was largely bifurcated - like the continent itself - by the Sahara
desert. The Arabic Maghreb, bordering the southern shore of the Mediterranean, came
out largely in support of AFRICOM; detractors were mostly from black Africa to the
south. African governments, along with many observers in the West, expressed their
concerns that AFRICOM was actually a stealth operation to extend US military control
across the continent with an eye toward dominating its resources and keeping a closer
eye on key competitors like China.

A 2007 US Congressional Research Service report on the creation of AFRICOM laid bare
the concerns of many African governments:

There has been considerable apprehension over US motivations for creating AFRICOM,
and some Africans worry that the move represents a neocolonial effort to dominate the
region militarily. US military efforts on the continent have been seen as episodic,
leading some to question a more sustained focus from DOD [the US Department of
Defense] now. Reports of US air strikes in Somalia in recent years and US support for
Ethiopia's military intervention there have added to those concerns. Many view US
counter-terrorism efforts in Africa with skepticism, and there appears to be a
widespread belief that the new command's primary goals will be to hunt terrorists and
to secure US access to African oil. US foreign policy analysts have focused increased
attention on China's role in Africa in recent years, and such attention has led some to
question whether an Africa Command might be part of a new contest for influence on
the continent.

In the intervening years, not much seems to have changed: In the "frequently asked
questions" section of its website, AFRICOM is almost too quick to ask and answer
inquries about an alleged agenda to control Africa's resources, replying to queries like,
"Is this [AFRICOM] an effort by the United States to gain access to natural resources
(e.g. petroleum)? Is this [AFRICOM] in response to Chinese activities in Africa?" with a
simple "No." But African countries apparently remain unconvinced: Liberia is the only
one of the 53 countries covered by AFRICOM's mandate to publicly offer to host the
Command - until now, its headquarters have been in Stuttgart, Germany.

The ongoing operation in Libya only seems to be reinforcing the notion that AFRICOM
is intent on promoting US strategic interests - not bringing "peace and security to the
people of Africa" as per its mission statement.

The Nigerian Foreign Minister Odein Ajumogobia pointed to what he viewed as the
capriciousness of the Libyan mission: "The contradictions between principle and
national interest ... have enabled the international community to impose a no-fly zone
over Libya ostensibly to protect innocent civilians from slaughter, but to watch
seemingly helplessly (in Ivory Coast) as ...men, women and children are slaughtered in
equally, even if less egregious, violence."

South African President Jacob Zuma stated firmly that his country said "no to the killing
of civilians, no to the regime-change doctrine and no to the foreign occupation of Libya
or any other sovereign state." This, even as his country, one of the non-permanent
members of the UN Security Council, voted for the resolution to impose a no-fly zone
over Libya.

It appears, then, that AFRICOM's inaugural mission - to help establish a no-fly zone
over Libya - has not only failed to convince sub-Saharan Africa of its stated intentions to
help promote peace and stability across the region, but may actually serve to enhance
resistance to US military presence on the continent.
------------------------
Obama Defends Libya Fight (Wall Street Journal)
By LAURA MECKLER and ADAM ENTOUS
March 29, 2011
President Barack Obama made his case for military intervention in Libya in a speech to
the nation on Monday, saying the action he directed was in U.S. interests and had
already succeeded in preventing a massacre of "horrific scale.''

He said the U.S. would work to remove Col. Moammar Gadhafi from power, but made
clear that he would rely on political, financial and other pressures—not military force—
to drive him out. That left open the central question of how Col. Gadhafi's removal
would be accomplished, and how the U.S. would deal with Libya should he remain.

More broadly, Mr. Obama set out the most detailed explanation to date of a new model
for how the U.S. will approach international crises, laying what may be seen as an
Obama doctrine in which the U.S. acts as a coalition-builder, spreading the costs and
burdens among nations.

"The burden of action should not be America's alone," he said. "Our task is instead to
mobilize the international community for collective action, because, contrary to the
claims of some, American leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone."

Mr. Obama's speech seemed designed to parry criticisms from some Republicans that
the military action in Libya was not speedy or forceful enough, and from liberals and
some conservatives that the U.S. should not have intervened militarily.

After Mr. Obama spoke, some Republicans said he still had not laid out a clear
benchmark for success in Libya, and that he was wrong to exclude regime change from
the military mission.
"If I were Gadhafi, I might feel a little better tonight," said Sen. John McCain (R., Ariz.),
Mr. Obama's GOP opponent in the 2008 election.

"The president should have acted weeks before he did, and done so using much clearer
guiding principles and with a more clearly defined strategy,'' said Sen. Roy Blunt (R.,
Mo.), in a statement.

Jerry Seib and Alan Murray analyze President Obama's speech on Libya, including his
arguments for American military intervention and the possible leadership scenarios in
Libya that could result from it.
.Mr. Obama, in his first major address on the military operation in Libya, sought to
reassure war-weary Americans that the action in Libya was succeeding and, 10 days
after the first strikes, U.S. involvement already was ratcheting down.

Mr. Obama said the alliance took action as the Libyan leader threatened to conduct a
"massacre'' in the rebel stronghold of Benghazi "that would have reverberated across
the region and stained the conscience of the world. ... And tonight, I can report that we
have stopped Gadhafi's deadly advance."

Mr. Obama drew an explicit contrast with the U.S. experience in Iraq: The U.S. wants
Gadhafi gone, but it will not repeat its experience in Iraq, in which the U.S. led the way
in inserting a large ground force.

That regime change "took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and
nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya," he said.

The alliance against Col. Gadhafi has made significant gains in the days since the U.S.
and its allies first launched military strikes.

Still, the forces loyal to the Libyan leader have maintained a grip on Tripoli—where
explosions could be heard late Monday night—and other coastal cities in the country's
west.

The next major conflict was likely to take place in Col. Gadhafi's hometown stronghold
of Sirte, where a rebel victory could open a pathway to Tripoli.

While the U.S. led the initial military strikes in Libya, Mr. Obama emphasized that
command was now shifting to NATO.

He said the U.S. would now play a supporting role, providing the coalition with
intelligence, logistical support and assistance with search and rescue operations.

He said this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition will "significantly" reduce

the risk and cost of the continued operation to the U.S. military and taxpayer.
Mr. Obama's 27-minute speech, delivered at the National Defense University in
Washington, were his most extensive remarks on Libya since the bombing campaign
began.

They followed bipartisan criticism in Congress that he hadn't done enough to explain
his rationale for committing U.S. forces.

House Speaker John Boehner (R., Ohio) laid out a series of questions about the mission
in a letter to Mr. Obama last week, and on Monday, Senate Minority Leader Mitch
McConnell, (R., Ky.), offered a similar list.

Some Republicans said afterward that they president had not provided enough clarity.

Rep. Tom Price (R., Ga.) said that the speech "did not provide a substantive plan for the
future and in that it has not provided the type of clear, coherent leadership needed."

By contrast, Sen. Bill Nelson (D., Fla.) said in a statement that Mr. Obama "did the right
thing" by moving to stop Col. Gadhafi at Benghazi.

He also said Mr. Obama had "clearly explained how we're involved in a limited
campaign" in the country.

Mr. Obama's approach in Libya reflects the experiences of some of his most senior
foreign policy advisers, who made their names in part by arguing that the West's
inaction during the Rwandan genocide in the 1990s made it morally complicit.

The speech made clear what the White House has long said: that the U.S. would use
force to protect civilians, but that it would rely on political tools in its effort to dislodge
Col. Gadhafi from power.

But that risks a scenario in which a defiant Libyan leader manages to stay in power in
Tripoli.

U.S. intelligence agencies worry that Col. Gadhafi, who has extensive stockpiles of
mustard gas and high explosives at his disposal, could resort to acts of terrorism against
Western targets, and become a long-term menace and international recluse.
-------------------------------
Obama Libya Speech: Striking For What Was Unsaid As Much As Said (NPR)
By Frank James
March 28, 2011, 09:59 pm
President Obama's Monday night speech on Libya was probably as striking for what he
didn't say as much as what he did say.
For instance, he didn't offer details for how much longer the U.S. military will be
actively involved in the effort.

It's not hard to see why he'd avoid that one. No one knows at this point how long it will
take for Moammar Gadhafi to fall, if he indeed does.Weeks, months, more, who knows?

And with the military option being handed off to NATO that means the U.S. essentially
handed the operation back to itself since it is the first among equals in the U.S.-
European military alliance.

He didn't promise to keep Congress or the American people informed with future
updates.

Everyone knows the president and his aides would clearly rather be talking about the
economy than the confused Libyan conflict. Gadhafi has already distracted from their
domestic agenda any more than they've wanted.

He didn't appeal to history, the actions of past presidents, to make the case that his
decisions were in the long tradition of U.S. foreign or military policy.

Of course, the track record of U.S. armed humanitarian interventions is uneven. True,
Bosnia and Kosovo went relatively well for the U.S. Somalia, on the other hand, with its
"Blackhawk Down" debacle, was viewed as a disaster.

Placing his decisions in the context of what other presidents have done might have also
helped him beat back accusations that he had exceeded his constitutional authority by
ordering the military to act without more congressional input.

But clearly, the president didn't feel compelled to do that.

For those reasons and more, the speech is unlikely to satisfy many of Obama's critics,
some of whom wouldn't have been mollified even if he had accepted wholesale their
suggestions for what to include.

What the president did say that may become the most analyzed part of his speech is
how he will approach the use of military force during his presidency.

Like virtually all his predecessors, he stated unequivocally that he would use the
military unilaterally if it was necessary to defend the nation from a threat.

But during his presidency the U.S. will act militarily not just when its security or vital
national interests are at risk but also when its "interests and values" are threatened,
Obama said.
But in these cases, for instance to stop genocide, the U.S. won't act alone but with
international partners to help rovide military personnel and money for such efforts.

Obama was putting the world on notice that protecting innocent civilian populations or
the democratic aspirations of a people weren't just the work of the American people but
of other nations that share its values.

Obama said:

In such cases, we should not be afraid to act – but the burden of action should not be
America's alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international
community for collective action. Because contrary to the claims of some, American
leadership is not simply a matter of going it alone and bearing all of the burden
ourselves. Real leadership creates the conditions and coalitions for others to step up as
well; to work with allies and partners so that they bear their share of the burden and
pay their share of the costs; and to see that the principles of justice and human dignity
are upheld by all.

But Obama made sure to state that even when it was part of such an international effort,
the U.S. would still pick its shots. That's because not every dire situation in the world
can be made better through the limited means he was willing to use.

It is true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given
the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the
need for action. But that cannot be an argument for never acting on behalf of what's
right. In this particular country – Libya; at this particular moment, we were faced with
the prospect of violence on a horrific scale. We had a unique ability to stop that
violence: an international mandate for action, a broad coalition prepared to join us, the
support of Arab countries, and a plea for help from the Libyan people themselves. We
also had the ability to stop Gaddafi's forces in their tracks without putting American
troops on the ground.

It was Obama's way of saying in such instances, Americans shouldn't let the perfect be
the enemy of the good.

On the other hand, he had a message for the hawks who want U.S. troops to kick in
Gadhafi's door or give the dictator the opportunity to die for his country. That would
come at too high a costs of American blood and treasure, Obama said.

It was one of those moments that was a reminder that in the Obama presidency is a
reaction to that of his immediate predecessor, George W. Bush.

Of course, there is no question that Libya – and the world – will be better off with
Gadhafi out of power. I, along with many other world leaders, have embraced that goal,
and will actively pursue it through non-military means. But broadening our military
mission to include regime change would be a mistake.

The task that I assigned our forces – to protect the Libyan people from immediate
danger, and to establish a No Fly Zone – carries with it a UN mandate and international
support. It is also what the Libyan opposition asked us to do. If we tried to overthrow
Gaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would likely have to put U.S. troops
on the ground, or risk killing many civilians from the air. The dangers faced by our men
and women in uniform would be far greater. So would the costs, and our share of the
responsibility for what comes next.

To be blunt, we went down that road in Iraq. Thanks to the extraordinary sacrifices of
our troops and the determination of our diplomats, we are hopeful about Iraq's future.
But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and
nearly a trillion dollars. That is not something we can afford to repeat in Libya.
-------------------------
2nd UPDATE: Obama's Speech Draws Praise, Questions, Criticism In Congress (Wall
Street Journal)
By Siobhan Hughes
MARCH 28, 2011, 9:30 P.M.
WASHINGTON -U.S. President Barack Obama's address to the nation about the
rationale for an intervention in Libya drew an array of reactions at the U.S. Capitol,
mixing pride with unease and reflecting the lack of a coherent position among either
party over the military action.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D, Nev.) said that the U.S. had "stopped the deadly
advance" of Col. Moammar Gadhafi towards Benghazi, the rebel capital, and would
encourage "progress toward real change in Libya and throughout the Middle East."

House Republicans emphasized that Obama had not laid out the conditions under
which the U.S. could deem its participation a success and end its involvement
altogether.

Within the Republican caucus came arguments from Sen. Lindsey Graham (R, S.C.) and
Sen. John McCain (R, Ariz.) for a more muscular U.S. role in the Middle East, brushing
aside the tea party-conservative emphasis on controlling the U.S. budget deficit.

"I'm really tired of hearing people talking about it costs too much," Graham said on
CNN. "Let me tell you what it would cost this country if Gadhafi comes back into
power: instability forever; incredible oil price spikes--our allies of France and Italy
depend on Libyan oil," Graham said. "Young people throughout the Arab world
thinking we let them down when we could help them."
Many plaudits came with conditions. Sen. Ben Nelson (D, Fla.) said that Obama had
"clearly explained how we're involved in a limited campaign"--a major talking point
among Democrats who appear to suggest there would be limits to their support for an
expanded U.S. role in the Middle East.

House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D, Calif.) drove home the point more forcefully,
emphasizing that the U.S. is transferring the lead role to NATO and noting that
Congress planned to hold oversight hearings. But she repeated a line she offered last
week about Obama's responsibility to check things out with lawmakers, saying that
"U.S. actions in Libya will be strengthened by continued consultation with Congress."

Sen. John McCain (R, Ariz.), while saying that the first part of Obama's speech was
"excellent," criticized Obama for saying that "broadening our military mission to include
regime change would be a mistake."

Speaking on CNN, McCain said that "Gadhafi must have been somewhat comforted"
that Obama said the military mission did not include removing Gadhafi from power.

"The reason why we wage wars is to achieve the results of a policy that we state,"
McCain said. "The president's policy is that Gadhafi must go. I think there's every
chance if we keep the pressure on that Gadhafi will be thrown under the bus by his
relatives or friends or others."

In the meantime, Michael Steel, a spokesman for House Speaker John Boehner (R,
Ohio), said that the speech failed to provide much clarity.

"Nine days into this military intervention, Americans still have no answer to the
fundamental question: what does success in Libya look like?" Steel said.

Rep. Tom Price (R, Ga.) was even more pointed.

"The president's focus on NATO's leading role in the operation offered no assurance
that American military men and women as well as American resources will not
continue to play a very large part in the days to come--bravely taking part in a mission
the president has still not clearly defined." Price said that the speech "did not provide a
substantive plan for the future and in that it has not provided the type of clear, coherent
leadership needed."

The question of the overall goal of the international mission has been a big one among
critics on Capitol Hill, since the stated goal of protecting Libyan civilians does not lay
out the conditions under which the intervention would end, especially if Gadhafi
remains in power.
----------------------------
U.S. Gives Its Air Power Expansive Role in Libya (NYT)
By ERIC SCHMITT
March 28, 2011
WASHINGTON — Even as President Obama on Monday described a narrower role for
the United States in a NATO-led operation in Libya, the American military has been
carrying out an expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan
Army to turn against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.

When the mission was launched, it was largely seen as having a limited, humanitarian
agenda: to keep Colonel Qaddafi from attacking his own people. But the White House,
the Pentagon and their European allies have given it the most expansive possible
interpretation, amounting to an all-out assault on Libya’s military.

A growing armada of coalition warplanes, armed with more precise information about
the location and abilities of Libyan Army units than was known a week ago, have
effectively provided the air cover the ragtag opposition has needed to stave off certain
defeat in its de facto eastern capital, Benghazi.

Allied aircraft are not only dropping 500-pound bombs on Libyan troops, they are also
using psychological operations to try to break their will to fight, broadcasting messages
in Arabic and English, telling Libyan soldiers and sailors to abandon their posts and go
back to their homes and families, and to defy Colonel Qaddafi’s orders.

The Obama administration has been reluctant to call the operation an actual war, and it
has sought to emphasize the involvement of a dozen other countries, particularly Italy,
Britain and France. In his speech on Monday night, Mr. Obama, as he has in the past,
portrayed the mission as a limited one, and described the United States’ role as
“supporting.”

But interviews in recent days offer a fuller picture of American involvement, and show
that it is far deeper than discussed in public and more instrumental to the fight than
was previously known.

From the air, the United States is supplying much more firepower than any other
country, with American bombing missions increasing to 107 on Sunday, from 49 on
Thursday. Besides taking part in the airstrikes, the American military is taking the lead
role in gathering intelligence, intercepting Libyan radio transmissions, for instance, and
using the information to orchestrate attacks against the Libyan forces on the ground.
And over the weekend the Air Force quietly sent three of its most fearsome weapons to
the operation.

The strategy for White House officials nervous that the Libya operation could drag on
for weeks or months, even under a NATO banner, is to hit Libyan forces hard enough
to force them to oust Colonel Qaddafi, a result that Mr. Obama has openly encouraged.
“Certainly, the implied though not stated goal here is that the Libyan Army will decide
they’re fighting for a losing cause,” said Gen. John P. Jumper, a retired Air Force chief of
staff. “You’re probably dealing with a force that may not be totally motivated to
continue this for the long haul.”

Ten days into the assault, the officials said that Libya’s formidable integrated air
defense has been largely obliterated, and that the operation was shifting to a new phase
devised to put even more pressure on the country’s armored columns and ground
troops.

For the Americans, six tank-killing A-10 Warthogs that fire laser-guided Maverick
missiles or 30-millimeter cannons arrived on the scene this weekend. The United States
also deployed two B-1B bombers, as well as two AC-130 gunships, lumbering aircraft
that orbit over targets at roughly 15,000 feet, bristling with 40-millimeter and 105-
millimeter cannons. The gunships’ weapons are so precise that they could operate
against Libyan forces in cities, which so far have been off limits for fear of civilian
casualties.

On Sunday, allied warships and submarines fired six Tomahawk cruise missiles at the
headquarters of the Libyan 32nd Brigade, based in Tripoli and commanded by one of
the Libyan leader’s sons, Khamis Qaddafi. Colonel Qaddafi has used the brigade in the
past for internal repression.

“This is one of Qaddafi’s most loyal units and are also one of the most active in terms of
attacking innocent people,” Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, the director of the military’s
joint staff, told reporters on Monday.

Despite this increased pressure on Libya’s elite forces, Admiral Gortney insisted that
the military was not going beyond the mandate of the United Nations resolution.

“I would definitely not say mission creep,” he said.

The allies have fired nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the campaign started
on March 19, all but 7 from the United States. The United States has flown about 370
attack missions, and its allied partners have flown a similar number, but the Americans
have dropped 455 precision-guided munitions compared with 147 from other coalition
members.

Over all, commanders say they are trying to create havoc among the Libyan forces,
cutting off their logistic pipeline, severing their communications back to headquarters
in Tripoli, and stoking fear within the ranks with round-the-clock attacks.

“You want to create confusion at the front, go in after command and control at the rear
and supply lines in between and ammunition facilities anywhere that we can find
them,” Admiral Gortney said Monday, describing the overall effect the campaign is
trying to achieve.

On Sunday, an EC-130J Commando Solo aircraft broadcast messages in English and

Arabic, to warn Libyan armed forces. “Libyan sailors, leave your ship immediately,” the
message warned. “Leave your equipment and return to your family or your home. The
Qaddadi regime forces are violating a United Nations resolution ordering the end of
hostilities in your country.”

Air commanders provided an example of the role of American intelligence-gathering.

Air Force eavesdropping planes intercept communications from Libyan troops and
relay that information to a Global Hawk drone flying high overhead. The Global Hawk
zooms in on the location of armored forces and determines rough coordinates. In some
cases, the drones are the first to detect moving targets. The Global Hawk sends the
coordinates to analysts at a ground station, who pass the data on to the command
center for targeting. The command center beams the coordinates to an E-3 Sentry Awacs
command-and-control plane, which in turn directs F-16 and Harrier jets and other
warplanes to their targets.

“Our message to the regime troops is simple: Stop fighting, stop killing your own
people, stop obeying the orders of Colonel Qaddafi,” Admiral Gortney said last week.
“To the degree that you defy these demands, we will continue to hit you and make it
more difficult for you to keep going.”
-----------------------
US: Allied Airstrikes Help Libyan Rebels Indirectly (VOA)
By Al Pessin
March 28, 2011
Washington - The U.S. military says coalition air strikes in Libya, under the United
Nations Security Council mandate, have helped the rebels advance toward the capital,
Tripoli, and that the attacks continue to hamper the Libyan army's ability to control,
deploy and supply its forces.

U.S. Navy Vice Admiral William Gortney says the international air campaign against
Libyan forces intensified over the weekend and that more of the flights were handled
by other members of the coalition, particularly those that involved attacks ground
targets.

"From Friday to Sunday, there was an increase in strikes from 91 to 107," said Admiral
Gortney. "But the majority each day were flown by our partner nation pilots. I know it
seems as though I'm trying to hammer home a point here, and I guess I am. It's simply
this - U.S. military participation in this operation, as we have said all along, is changing
to one primarily of support."
The admiral, who is the operations chief for the senior U.S. military command, says
aircraft from five NATO member countries have participated in airstrikes on Libya in
recent days and that they were joined by aircraft from Qatar. He says aircraft from the
United Arab Emirates will join the operation in the coming days and that U.S. flights
are focusing more on refueling, surveillance and electronic warfare.

Gortney says the attacks by allied aircraft and missiles are designed to weaken the
forces of the Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi and prevent them from attacking Libyan
civilians. He says U.S. forces have received no confirmed reports of civilian casualties
caused by coalition airstrikes.

The admiral says the attacks are not coordinated with the Libyan opposition, but he
notes that they have helped opposition forces advance westward toward Tripoli.

"We're not in direct support of the opposition," he said. "That's not part of our mandate,
sir. And we're not coordinating with the opposition. Our strategy continues to be to
pressure him [Moammar Gadhafi] where we think it's going to give us the best effect.
We see that, given the events that you see on the battlefield."

Opposition rebels have advanced close to Mr. Gadhafi's hometown and stronghold,
Sirte - a key town along the road to Tripoli. Admiral Gortney says coalition forces are
attacking Libyan government forces near the town, even though civilians are not under
threat there. He says the airstrikes are aimed at hurting the Libyan army's ability to
support its forces elsewhere.

The admiral also says that opposition gains could be fragile, and that even now, weeks
after the Libyan rebellion began, the United States does not know very much about the
rebel leaders.

"Clearly, the opposition is not well organized and it is not a very robust organization,"
said Admiral Gortney. "That's obvious. So any gain that they make is tenuous, based on
that. We're not talking with the opposition. We would like a much better
understanding of the opposition. We don't have it. So, yes, it does matter to us and
we're trying to fill in those knowledge gaps."

Gortney reports there were 195 coalition airstrikes in Libya on Saturday and Sunday -
103 of them by non-U.S. forces. He says command of the air campaign and the sea-
based arms embargo already has been transferred to NATO and that command of the
humanitarian operation will be transferred in the next few days.
----------------
Libyan rebels push toward Gaddafi’s home town (Washington Post)
By Tara Bahrampour and Greg Jaffe
March 28, 9:57 PM
RAS LANUF, Libya — Libyan rebels came under heavy fire as they pushed toward
Moammar Gaddafi’s home town on the Mediterranean coast Monday, setting up a
potentially crucial battle in the six-week-old uprising.

The rebels said they had captured the towns of Nawfaliyah and Harawah in their
advance west, but Gaddafi’s birthplace of Sirte remained in government hands.
Fighting continued throughout the day in Wadi al-Ahmar, a valley east of Sirte with
terrain that may pose more challenges than the flat desert roads the rebels have seized
so far.

Along the coastal road, the oil terminals at Brega and Ras Lanuf were operating, after
rebel forces retook them over the weekend. Gaddafi forces had wrested the two towns
from rebel control two and a half weeks ago.

Rebels sped up the road bringing supplies to the front line or waited in long lines at gas
stations. They were jubilant about their latest victories, which have come amid coalition
airstrikes against Gaddafi targets.

“We’re going to Sirte. Anyone who doesn’t love Gaddafi, come along!” yelled a young
man standing on the back of a pickup truck as it sped west.

“Yeah, yeah, yeah,” cried another one, flashing a victory sign. “Amrika, Amrika,
Amrika!”

A senior U.S. military official told reporters that the coalition’s sustained airstrikes had
forced Libya’s ground troops to retreat and that opposition forces had moved to within
80 miles of Sirte. “We believe the regime is preparing to dig in at Sirte, setting up a
number of checkpoints and placing tanks throughout the city,” said Vice Adm. William
Gortney, director of the Pentagon’s Joint Staff.

There was also heavy fighting in the strategic city of Misurata, particularly near the
center of the city.

Even as the rebels made gains, senior U.S. military officials cautioned that the
opposition lacked the firepower of the Libyan government forces and could be quickly
overrun if the airstrikes ceased. “The opposition is not well organized, and it is not a
very robust organization,” Gortney said. “That’s obvious. So any gain that they make is
tenuous based on that. Clearly, they’re achieving benefit from the actions that we’re
taking.”

The U.S. and allied forces flew 107 strike sorties over the past 24 hours, an increase of
about 20 over the previous day and a sign that the air campaign aimed at Gaddafi’s
ground forces continues to build.
Families that had fled Ras Lanuf in early March, when Gaddafi’s troops entered the
city, were trickling back Monday. Some had spent the past weeks in tents in the desert.

“We were afraid of looting, so we came back,” said Abdurabu el-Maghrabi, 32, standing
in front of his home. Looking down his mostly empty street, he said he did not know
what had happened to most of his neighbors. “It’s really hard to know any news right
now because everyone has left,” he said.

A rebel soldier lying on a gurney with a bandaged leg said he had seen about 10 pickup
trucks full of government troops and a large number of rebel fighters in Wadi al-Ahmar
on Monday. The two sides were evenly matched, he said, and were using machine
guns, rocket-propelled grenades and antiaircraft missiles to battle for the valley.

The soldier, Abdulatif Sagluf, a 29-year-old health and safety engineer from the rebel
capital of Benghazi, said he had been accidentally bayoneted that morning by a fellow
rebel. He said the rebel forces were “getting more organized day by day.”

International response

In Paris, French President Nicolas Sarkozy and British Prime Minister David Cameron
said in a joint statement Monday that “Gaddafi must go immediately,” and they urged
his supporters to “drop him before it is too late.”

But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov accused Western powers of exceeding the
bounds of a March 17 U.N. Security Council resolution that authorized a no-fly zone
over Libya and the protection of civilians.

“We consider that intervention by the coalition in what is essentially an internal civil
war is not sanctioned by the U.N. Security Council resolution,” Lavrov told reporters.
He cited reports of “coalition strikes on columns of Gaddafi’s forces, reports about
support for actions by the armed insurgents.”

The Persian Gulf emirate of Qatar, meanwhile, became the first Arab country to
formally recognize the rebels’ Transitional National Council as Libya’s legitimate
government. The move came a day after the council, based in Benghazi, announced a
contract with Qatar Petroleum to market crude oil produced from eastern Libyan oil
fields no longer under Gaddafi’s control.

Libyan state television condemned Qatar’s recognition, calling it a “blatant

interference” in Libya’s affairs.
-----------------------
Rebels Facing Tough Fight for Sirte (IPS)
By Unattributed Author
28 March 2011
Nawfaliya And Doha — Forces loyal to Muammar Gaddafi are resisting an advance by
Libyan rebels towards the embattled Libyan leader's hometown of Sirte in the fiercest
clashes since the start of a sweeping offensive that has brought a string of coastal towns
under opposition control.

The rebels, backed by international coalition air strikes, have advanced largely
unchecked since Friday but claims in Benghazi, the rebel's eastern stronghold, earlier on
Monday that Sirte had also fallen were premature.

Opposition fighters are now engaged in clashes about 100km east of the city, with pro-
Gaddafi forces shelling their front lines.

Fighting is ongoing at Nawfaliya, about 180km east of Sirte, where opposition forces
say they have come upon a heavily mined road. Pro-Gaddafi forces have dug into
positions near the front line, and are shelling opposition fighters.

Al Jazeera's Hoda Abdel Hamid, reporting from the east of Nawfaliya, said: "I've not
been able to confirm that there has actually been an advance in the town itself [Sirte].
They [rebels] managed to get really close to Sirte but they didn't get in."

"Sirte will not be easy to take," said General Hamdi Hassi, an opposition commander
from the city of Bin Jawad. "Now, because of NATO strikes on [the government's]
heavy weapons, we're almost fighting with the same weapons."

'We're manoeuvring'

Fawzi Bukatif, the commander of the Martyr's Brigade, part of the forces battling
Gaddafi, told Al Jazeera: "We're manoeuvring ... we are starting ... we are checking
what kind of forces they have there but we are standing at Hagela now - almost 100km
from Sirte."

Bukatif said the rebels' progress has been hampered by a lack of weapons as they rely
on "old Russian weapons".

"The ... problem we have is we have run out of weapons," he said.

"You know our weapons are traditional ones; the old ones; the Russian weapons. We
need ammunition. We need new weapons. We need anti-tanks; we do not have facilities
[but] we have the soldiers left behind by Gaddafi ...

"If we do have weapons and ammunitions that we need at the moment, we can move
strongly and faster."
Fresh fighting continued further west in rebel-held Misurata, where rebels admitted
that Gaddafi forces had gained control of part of the town after days of heavy fighting
and despite air strikes on Saturday by French and British forces.

"Part of the city is under rebel control and the other part is under the control of forces
loyal to Gaddafi," a spokesman told the Reuters news agency.

Rebels dismissed reports that a ceasefire had been declared by the Libyan foreign
ministry in Misurata and that anti- terrorism units there had stopped firing at rebel
forces.

Saddun al-Misrati, a member of the rebels' revolutionary committee, told Al Jazeera:

"We rubbish this announcement ... Nothing that they say will make a difference on the
ground."

Nine people were killed overnight by snipers and shelling by pro-Gaddafi forces,
according to a doctor in Misurata, while a resident told Reuters that 24 people had been
wounded in mortar attacks by government forces.

A Libyan government spokesman claimed Misurata had been liberated.

Al Jazeera's James Bays has been following the rebel offensive, which has seen them
claim the towns of Ajdabiya, Brega, Ras Lanuf and Bin Jawad.

Stretched lines

Speaking from Bin Jawad, Bays said it was uncertain where the frontline was. People
coming along the coastal road from Sirte said Gaddafi forces were gathered around
60km outside the city, positioned in trees, our correspondent said.

The speed of the rebel advance has stretched lines of communications and created
logistical problems, said Bays. One problem is a lack of electricity, which means that
petrol pumps do not work.

"At petrol stations they're using plastic bottles on strings down into the tank below the
station to pull up fuel," said Bays.

The rebels' advance along the coast has triggered exuberant celebrations in towns along
the route such as Ajdabiya with rebel fighters firing their weapons in celebration.

But government forces appear to have been withdrawing their heavy armour, rather
than engaging with the rebels.
There were reports on Sunday of a column of military vehicles, including truck-
mounted anti-aircraft guns, seen leaving Sirte in the direction of Tripoli, accompanied
by dozens of civilian cars carrying families, according to a Reuters reporter in the
vicinity.

The opposition's National Council has said it expects a major battle to occur in the area
around Tripoli, as opposed to at Sirte.

NATO command

Meanwhile, international air strikes continued on Monday with British Tornado aircraft
attacking and destroying Libyan government ammunition bunkers in the Sabha area of
the southern desert, the British defence ministry said.

"Storm Shadow missiles were launched against ammunition bunkers used to re-supply
Libyan government troops attacking civilians in the north of the country, including
Misurata," it said in a statement.

NATO on Sunday assumed full command of coalition air operations in Libya.

"We have directed NATO's top operational commander to begin executing this
operation with immediate effect," Anders Fogh Rasmussen, NATO's secretary general,
said in a statement. "Our goal is to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under
threat from the Gaddafi regime."

The operations will be led by Canadian General Charles Bouchard, NATO said.

Speaking to Al Jazeera, Rasmussen said that NATO was "impartial" and not picking
sides, and that its mandate was only to prevent violence against civilians.

Rasmussen said that NATO's taking authority over the military intervention would
provide "unity of command".

He also confirmed that several non-NATO countries would be contributing to the

military effort, but said he would leave announcements up to individual governments.

James Spencer, a Middle East and North Africa defence analyst, told Al Jazeera that
removing Gaddafi from power was "not within NATO's purview".

"If you listen very carefully, the Secretary-General of NATO has been very clear.
[Intervention] is to protect civilians against Gaddafi attacks," he said.
-------------------------------
Libyan Rebels Aim to Revive Oil Exports (NYT)
By CLIFFORD KRAUSS
Published: March 28, 2011
HOUSTON — After seizing control of critical oil fields and terminals in eastern Libya
over the weekend, Libyan rebels are now trying to sell oil in international markets,
potentially raising hundreds of millions of dollars to buy weapons and supplies.

Oil industry officials, echoing claims made by a rebel leader, said Monday that they
believed that Qatar had agreed to buy oil offered by the rebels and planned to ship it in
leased tankers.

The Qatari government has not commented on the oil sales, but on Monday, Qatar
became the first Arab country to formally recognize the legitimacy of the rebels as
representatives of Libya. In addition, the recent military advances by the rebels were
made possible by allied air support as well as critical logistical commitments from
Qatar.

“There clearly appears to be some coordination, and money can buy you a lot,” said
Michael A. Levi, a senior fellow for energy and the environment at the Council on
Foreign Relations. “My guess is this will be more consequential for the conflict than for
the oil markets.”

Over the last few days, the rebels have seized several towns with important oil
installations that they said would enable them to produce and export crude. Although
there is concern that the rebel advance may prove to be fleeting, oil traders responded
to their victories by pushing down the price of most world oil benchmarks, albeit
modestly.

On Monday, the price of the benchmark United States crude oil, West Texas
Intermediate, fell by $1.48 a barrel, or 1.4 percent, to $103.92. The benchmark is 7.3
percent higher than it was a month ago, and 30 percent higher than a year ago.

Although the Libyan government faces global economic sanctions and asset freezes, an
official at the Treasury Department said that the United States would not seek to block
oil sales by the rebels if they could prove the money was not going to any Libyan
government authority, the national oil company or the Qaddafi family.

“Everything owned by or controlled by the government of Libya is subject to

sanctions,” said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because no
official determination had been made about the proposed oil sales. “Anything that is
not is not governed by U.S. sanctions.”

According to news reports, the rebels claimed they would be able to produce up to
130,000 barrels of crude a day, less than a tenth of what Libya exported before turmoil
erupted last month.
But they also have access to millions of barrels stored in coastal oil terminals, which
have been effectively closed to tanker traffic during the conflict. The rebels now control
all five eastern oil export terminals, including Es Sider, Ras Lanuf and Zueitina, roughly
two-thirds of the country’s export capacity and a majority of its production and refining
capacity, according to a research note by the Eurasia Group, a consultancy firm.

Francois Gauthier, the Algeria country manager for the Italian energy company Enel,
estimated that there could be as many as two million barrels of oil stored in just one
rebel-controlled oil port, Tobruk, that could be exported quickly. At an estimated sale
price of $100 a barrel, selling the oil in Tobruk could raise as much as $200 million,
although the rebels would probably have to share the funds with Western oil
companies that co-own the leases on the fields.

“It’s a lot of cash, but it won’t solve all of their problems over the long run,” Mr.
Gauthier said.

Libyan oil is particularly valued on world markets because it is high quality, needs little
refining and is particularly well suited for European diesel markets.

With allied planes and naval vessels patrolling the area, Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi
could be powerless to stop tankers from sailing into and out of Tobruk and other rebel-
held ports. However, forces loyal to Colonel Qaddafi could still sabotage critical
pumping equipment needed to transport oil from the fields to the ports.

The rebels already have their own oil company, Agoco, which is based in rebel-held
Benghazi and broke away from the main national oil company early in the conflict.
Agoco controls fields that represent 40 percent of the country’s 1.6 million barrels a day
of output and operates an oil terminal and refinery in Tobruk.

Aside from a few refinery storage tanks, little of Libya’s oil infrastructure has been
damaged in the fighting so far. The pumps, hoses, metering, docks and storage tanks at
the ports are intact, and the oil fields are ready to be pumped by local oil workers,
according to oil experts.

“It’s only a question of flipping switches,” said Michael C. Lynch, president of Strategic
Energy and Economic Research, a consultancy firm.

Details of the dealings between the rebels and the Qataris remain unclear, but several
oil industry experts said the Qataris or the United Nations could place money from any
Libyan oil sales in an escrow fund that would later reimburse Italian, French, Spanish
and American oil companies that have investments in the Libyan oil fields. Those
companies include Eni, Repsol, Total and Occidental Petroleum.
“The companies’ attitude may be ‘Don’t worry, we’ll settle up later,’ ” said Mr. Lynch,
who has broad experience in international oil markets. “This is a good way for the
companies to get on the rebels’ good side.”
----------------------------
Why Libya's unrest could threaten the Sahel region (Christian Science Monitor)
By Alex de Waal
March 28, 2011
African leaders in the Sahel – the coast-to-coast belt of countries just south of Libya – are
afraid that Libya's unrest will disrupt the region's balance of power and put arms in the
hands of rebel militias.

The civil war in Libya, and the military intervention against Colonel Muammar Qaddafi
are generally portrayed as a democratic uprising against a dictator. But they are also the
breakdown of a system of governance without institutions. Qaddafi deliberately
refused to build institutions in Libya, reflecting both his own Bedouin background and
his philosophy of people’s government. His Africa policy was similarly pursued by
through the instruments of monetary patronage and ideological solidarity, strictly on
the basis of personal relations with counterparts.

Qaddafi has been erratic and mischievous, misusing Libya’s financial clout to act as the
biggest buyer in a regional political marketplace. Between 11 and 17 African countries –
to be precise, African heads of state – have benefited from his largesse. Many rebel
groups, especially in neighbouring countries, have also been the recipients of
extraordinary Libyan giving sprees. Not only Qaddafi, but his lieutenants, possess large
reserves of money and enormous stores of weaponry.

Much of Libya is now ungoverned. That is particularly true of southern Libya. There
has been little attention to the towns of the south, such as Sebha and Kufra, with no
international correspondents there. These places are matters of great concern to
neighboring governments such as Niger, Chad, and Sudan, because these towns have
served as the rear base for armed rebellions in their countries, and rebel leaders still
reside there. Qaddafi’s opening of the Libyan arsenals to anyone ready to fight for the
regime, and the collapse of authority in other places, means that such rebels have been
able to acquire arms and vehicles with ease. The Sudanese defense minister visited
N’djamena last week to discuss the threat.

Reporters on the coast have spoken about African mercenaries serving in the pro-
Gaddafi forces, mentioning countries of origin such as Chad, Burkina Faso, and
Mauritania. There are also rumours that Darfurians, including members of rebel
factions based in Libya, are fighting in Libya. The deal is reportedly simple: take
whatever arms you can handle, and fight for me, and then those weapons and vehicles
are yours for whatever use you see fit.
Mercenaries, freebooters, and rebels from across the Sahel and even beyond are heading
for Libya to take advantage of this open-entry, take-all-you-can arms bonanza.

I spoke with one African military officer who welcomed the NATO action in Libya,
saying “nothing could be worse than Qaddafi.” I suggested that he wait and see.
------------------------
U.S. Gives Its Air Power Expansive Role in Libya (NYT)
By ERIC SCHMITT
March 28, 2011
Even as President Obama on Monday described a narrower role for the United States in
a NATO-led operation in Libya, the American military has been carrying out an
expansive and increasingly potent air campaign to compel the Libyan Army to turn
against Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi.
When the mission was launched, it was largely seen as having a limited, humanitarian
agenda: to keep Colonel Qaddafi from attacking his own people. But the White House,
the Pentagon and their European allies have given it the most expansive possible
interpretation, amounting to an all-out assault on Libya’s military.

A growing armada of coalition warplanes, armed with more precise information about
the location and abilities of Libyan Army units than was known a week ago, have
effectively provided the air cover the ragtag opposition has needed to stave off certain
defeat in its de facto eastern capital, Benghazi.

Allied aircraft are not only dropping 500-pound bombs on Libyan troops, they are also
using psychological operations to try to break their will to fight, broadcasting messages
in Arabic and English, telling Libyan soldiers and sailors to abandon their posts and go
back to their homes and families, and to defy Colonel Qaddafi’s orders.

The Obama administration has been reluctant to call the operation an actual war, and it
has sought to emphasize the involvement of a dozen other countries, particularly Italy,
Britain and France. In his speech on Monday night, Mr. Obama, as he has in the past,
portrayed the mission as a limited one, and described the United States’ role as
“supporting.”

But interviews in recent days offer a fuller picture of American involvement, and show
that it is far deeper than discussed in public and more instrumental to the fight than
was previously known.

From the air, the United States is supplying much more firepower than any other
country. The allies have fired nearly 200 Tomahawk cruise missiles since the campaign
started on March 19, all but 7 from the United States. The United States has flown about
370 attack missions, and its allied partners have flown a similar number, but the
Americans have dropped 455 precision-guided munitions compared with 147 from
other coalition members.

Besides taking part in the airstrikes, the American military is taking the lead role in
gathering intelligence, intercepting Libyan radio transmissions, for instance, and using
the information to orchestrate attacks against the Libyan forces on the ground. And
over the weekend the Air Force quietly sent three of its most fearsome weapons to the
operation.

The strategy for White House officials nervous that the Libya operation could drag on
for weeks or months, even under a NATO banner, is to hit Libyan forces hard enough
to force them to oust Colonel Qaddafi, a result that Mr. Obama has openly encouraged.

“Certainly, the implied though not stated goal here is that the Libyan Army will decide
they’re fighting for a losing cause,” said Gen. John P. Jumper, a retired Air Force chief of
staff. “You’re probably dealing with a force that may not be totally motivated to
continue this for the long haul.”

Ten days into the assault, the officials said that Libya’s formidable integrated air
defense has been largely obliterated, and that the operation was shifting to a new phase
devised to put even more pressure on the country’s armored columns and ground
troops.

For the Americans, six tank-killing A-10 Warthogs that fire laser-guided Maverick
missiles or 30-millimeter cannons arrived on the scene this weekend. The United States
also deployed two B-1B bombers, as well as two AC-130 gunships, lumbering aircraft
that orbit over targets at roughly 15,000 feet, bristling with 40-millimeter and 105-
millimeter cannons. The gunships’ weapons are so precise that they could operate
against Libyan forces in cities, which so far have been off limits for fear of civilian
casualties.

On Sunday, allied warships and submarines fired six Tomahawk cruise missiles at the
headquarters of the Libyan 32nd Brigade, based in Tripoli and commanded by one of
the Libyan leader’s sons, Khamis Qaddafi. Colonel Qaddafi has used the brigade in the
past for internal repression.

“This is one of Qaddafi’s most loyal units and are also one of the most active in terms of
attacking innocent people,” Vice Adm. William E. Gortney, the director of the military’s
joint staff, told reporters on Monday.

Despite this increased pressure on Libya’s elite forces, Admiral Gortney insisted that
the military was not going beyond the mandate of the United Nations resolution.
“I would definitely not say mission creep,” he said.

Over all, commanders say they are trying to create havoc among the Libyan forces,
cutting off their logistic pipeline, severing their communications back to headquarters
in Tripoli, and stoking fear within the ranks with round-the-clock attacks.

“You want to create confusion at the front, go in after command and control at the rear
and supply lines in between and ammunition facilities anywhere that we can find
them,” Admiral Gortney said Monday, describing the overall effect the campaign is
trying to achieve.

On Sunday, an EC-130J Commando Solo aircraft broadcast messages in English and

Arabic, to warn Libyan armed forces. “Libyan sailors, leave your ship immediately,” the
message warned. “Leave your equipment and return to your family or your home. The
Qaddafi regime forces are violating a United Nations resolution ordering the end of
hostilities in your country.”

Air commanders provided an example of the role of American intelligence-gathering.

Air Force eavesdropping planes intercept communications from Libyan troops and
relay that information to a Global Hawk drone flying high overhead. The Global Hawk
zooms in on the location of armored forces and determines rough coordinates. In some
cases, the drones are the first to detect moving targets. The Global Hawk sends the
coordinates to analysts at a ground station, who pass the data on to the command
center for targeting. The command center beams the coordinates to an E-3 Sentry Awacs
command-and-control plane, which in turn directs F-16 and Harrier jets and other
warplanes to their targets.

“Our message to the regime troops is simple: Stop fighting, stop killing your own
people, stop obeying the orders of Colonel Qaddafi,” Admiral Gortney said last week.
“To the degree that you defy these demands, we will continue to hit you and make it
more difficult for you to keep going.”
-----------------------
Battle Erupts For Key Ivory Coast Town (VOA)
By Unattributed Author
March 28, 2011
Intense fighting has erupted in western Ivory Coast, where fighters loyal to two rival
presidents are battling for control of Duekoue, a strategic town.

Residents of Duekoue reported hearing explosions and heavy weapons being fired on
Monday.
Witnesses say fighters backing internationally-recognized president Alassane Ouattara
launched an attack to capture the town from forces of incumbent president Laurent
Gbagbo.

Pro-Ouattara rebels have been making gains in western Ivory Coast, seizing at least five
towns from pro-Gbagbo troops in recent weeks.

Gbagbo has defied intense international pressure to turn over power to Ouattara, who
the United Nations and African Union recognize as the winner of last November's
presidential election.

The town of Duekoue is located at a crossroads that leads to either Liberia in the west or
Guinea in the north.

The U.N. refugee agency says up to one million people have fled their homes because of
post-election violence in Ivory Coast.

The United Nations says at least 462 people have been killed in violence since the crisis
began in December.

The U.N. Security Council will take up a resolution this week that seeks sanctions
against Gbagbo and his closest advisors.
-----------------------
South Sudan: Will Freedom Just Lead to Civil War? (Time)
By Alan Boswell
March 28, 2011
Khartoum - Fears of a bloody birth for the world's newest country, South Sudan, are
becoming ever more real after weeks of battles between its autonomous government
and their opponents. Hundreds have died in fighting between South Sudan authorities
and rebel militias. Now five rebel groups in four of the country's ten states appear to
have united under one name, the Southern Sudan Democratic Movement, and one
commander, George Athor. "There is a need for the world to know who we are," Athor
told TIME via satellite phone from an undisclosed location. "Our manifesto will come
out very soon."

Even without such a document, the aims and motivations of Athor and his men are
clear. Athor is a former deputy chief of staff for the Sudan People's Liberation Army
(SPLA), the armed wing of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM), which led
the fight for independence and now runs the government. Athor took his men to the
bush last year after an unsuccessful bid in the election for a state governorship. In
February, his forces killed more than 200 people, mostly civilians, in an attack on the
village of Fangak in the northeast of South Sudan. Among his recruits are warlords who
in the past have hired out their services to the northern Sudanese government to repress
the southern population and clear villagers away from oil fields. Their alliance is likely
as loose as all their previous fleeting allegiances, but the rebels clearly feel emboldened.

When they voted overwhelmingly in a January referendum to secede from Sudan's

northern, Arab government in Khartoum, most southern Sudanese hoped they were
turning a new page after decades of war. South Sudan's independence, scheduled for
July, is the endgame of a 2005 U.S.-backed peace deal to stop a half century of north-
south bloodshed in which more than 2 million people died. But the jubilee of January
was short-lived. The referendum instead signaled a new round of intra-south killings,
as old warlords awoke from hibernation and new dissidents gathered strength.

The rebels are not just driven by opportunism. If the new southern government wants
peace, it will have to solve some fundamental divisions. First among them: the
government's domination by the south's largest tribe, the Dinka. Bapiny Monituel, a
beefy, boyish-faced general who joined Athor earlier this month, says that after the 2005
peace deal, he joined the northern army rather than the SPLA because he is Nuer.
"Everything [in the south] is controlled by the Dinka. They don't want us to come to
power."

Dinka leaders counter that Nuer hold deputy positions in both the SPLA and the
southern government. Nevertheless, when the Dinka South Sudan President Salva Kiir
named a constitutional review committee in February, 15 of the 24 members came from
his tribe. Widespread official corruption and land grabbing only exacerbates the
animosity. Noting the lack of development in the south since 2005, despite hundreds of
millions of dollars in aid and billions more the government has received in oil revenues,
Monituel grumbles: "The oil [money] is going to the Arabs in the north and the Dinka in
the south, but it is in our land." Says Jon Temin, Sudan program director at the U.S.
Institute of Peace: "With the referendum complete, the old grievances and armed
groups have resurfaced."

The SPLA claims the rebels are proxies for the north. On March 12, SPLM secretary-
general Pagan Amum suspended talks with the north on how to handle July's
separation, accusing Khartoum of seeking to overthrow the southern government. But
when he produced documents allegedly proving that the north is backing Athor,
independent experts dismissed them as unsophisticated forgeries. For its part, the north
does not deny that in the past it worked to undermine the southern leadership. But Al-
Dirdiri Mohammed Ahmed, a member of the ruling National Congress Party's
negotiation team, says that was no worse than the support offered by the south to
Darfur's rebels in the west. "[We told SPLM:] 'We have to stop everything where it is,
and let us now start a new page,'" he tells TIME.

Whatever the sincerity of that statement, the key issue does appear to be intra-south
divisions rather than northern support for any dissident faction. Carol Berger, an
anthropologist who studies the SPLA and militarization, says the number joining Athor
and Co. is rising: "The violence spreading throughout many parts of the south is largely
the result of unfinished business within the SPLA itself."

Only a few months ago, the splitting of Sudan looked set to be a rare diplomatic
triumph in Africa. Now, as July 9, the day of secession, draws closer, it seems more
likely that any celebrations will be muted. Sitting in his comfortable self-imposed exile
in the northern capital Khartoum, rebel leader Monituel declares war: "Now that the
referendum has gone we are dealing with our problems."
------------------------
Africa: Last Frontier for Business Increasingly Abandoned by the U.S. Department of
Commerce (AllAfrica)
By Stephen Hayes
28 March 2011
Washington, DC — Less than two years ago, President Barack Obama and First Lady
Michelle Obama made headlines as they landed in Accra, Ghana. The July 2009 visit
was historic, coming only months after Obama was sworn in as our first African-
American president. For some Americans, media coverage of the trip was a wake-up
call that showed Africa as a coveted partner for businesses from South America,
Europe, the Middle East, India and, especially, China.

Responding to text messages submitted by Africans, the president recognized Africa's

strategic and long-term commercial importance to American business. "I want to find
ways that we can further open up trade relationships between the United States and
African countries," he said.

Many had assumed that Obama as president would go first to Kenya, the home of his
father. But Ghana was rewarded instead because it was a shining beacon of African
democracy and, with recent discoveries of offshore oil, an increasingly valuable
economic partner to the United States.

Fast forward to March 2011: We learn that the U.S. Department of Commerce, with little
fanfare but apparent significant effort to camouflage its actions, has decided to close its
office in Ghana, citing budget cuts. With this action, Commerce proposes to close the
doors on America's commercial beachhead in one of Africa's most thriving economies.

"Incredibly shortsighted" was the reaction of one American businessman with

significant interests in Ghana. So much for finding new trading relationships between
the United States and Africa.

Commerce officials deny the finality of any decision about the Ghana office. I hope this
is true, although I trust the sources that tell me to the contrary. Juxtapose this ill-advised
decision by Commerce with a projection made earlier this year by The Economist
magazine, which says that seven of the top 10 fastest growing economies in the world
for 2011-2015 will be found in Africa. You guessed it: Ghana is among them.

At a time when businesses around the world are creating jobs in their home countries
and in Africa by more actively engaging with the continent, the U.S. government sends
a message that Africa doesn't matter.

Commerce is also closing its last office in Dakar, Senegal - the only such office in
French-speaking Africa - and is indefinitely shelving plans to open an office in Angola,
another of Africa's economic front-runners. Regardless of whether these cuts are
decided as a function of internal decisions at Commerce or by prevailing budget woes
on Capitol Hill, this approach is one that serves neither the short-term nor long-term
interests of our country.

Africa is home to more than one billion people. Estimates vary, but according to Vijay
Mahajan, author of the book "Africa Rising: How 900 Million African Consumers Offer
More Than You Think," 50-150 million Africans have spending power that is similar to
the middle classes in the West, while 350-500 million are in Africa's "aspirational classes
– from households with stable jobs – that resemble counterparts in China and India
being courted by Western firms. These Africa aspirants drink Coca-Cola, want mobile
phones and yearn to own a car or motorcycle."

Combined with the fact that American brands are well recognized and regarded in
Africa, U.S. exports to Africa are well positioned to grow and could very well boom,
with American firms reaping both immediate and long-term benefits as Africa's
economies grow further. I have met countless American companies keenly interested in
Africa, but in need of the kind of instrumental support given by the Department of
Commerce's offices in Africa to make that first crucial step toward engagement.

As Commerce's offices close, so too closes the door on potential American business,
along with other avenues to advance America's political and commercial interests on
the continent.
------------------------------------
UN News Service Africa Briefs
Full Articles on UN Website

Fresh clashes break out in key Ivorian town, UN mission reports

28 March – Fresh fighting erupted today in a strategic town in western Côte d’Ivoire,
the United Nations peacekeeping operation reported, amid mounting international
concerns about the humanitarian situation in the West African country.

Senior UNICEF official urges Southern Sudan to prioritize children’s issues

28 March – The deputy head of the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) has
stressed the need for Southern Sudan, which is scheduled to become an independent
nation in July, to prioritize issues such as birth registration and immunization and to
invest in programmes to ensure the progress and well-being of young people.

Joint UN-African team finds North Darfur villages deserted after earlier clashes
28 March – A joint United Nations-African Union fact-finding mission to several
villages in North Darfur that saw fighting earlier this month between Sudanese
Government forces and rebels has found them almost entirely deserted.

Resource-rich Africa well placed to transition to ‘green economy’ – UN official

28 March – Africa is well poised to take advantage of a host of opportunities on the
continent for building a ‘green economy,’ one that generates decent jobs in an
environmentally sustainable way, a senior United Nations official said today.

UN anti-crime chief highlights Kenya’s role in tackling regional security threats

28 March – The head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) today
met with Kenyan officials in the capital, Nairobi, to discuss a number of issues such as
counter-piracy, police reform and illicit drug trafficking.