National Security

Misrata death toll exceeds 600, where are the AC-130s?

By Mark Benjamin | April 18, 2011 | +

Mark Thompson’s earlier post about the contradictions in U.S. policy and strategy in Libya is likely to become the story line of the week. The story goes like this: President Obama a) pushed intervention in Libya to avoid a civilian massacre b) restricted that intervention to an air war, and then c) hamstrung that air war so badly that the massacre happened anyways, like what is happening now in Misrata.

Soon after NATO took the lead in the skies over Libya, the Europeans quickly began running short on precision bombs – exactly the kind of munitions needed to take out Gadhafi’s armor and artillery while minimizing civilian casualties. Then, ten days ago, the United States pulled the AC-130s and A-10 Warthogs from the fight, perhaps the best weapons in the world for taking out enemy tanks.

Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal says the death toll in Misrata is at least 600 – and climbing by the hour.

Related Topics: National Security

  • Latest on Battleland

    Army photo / Sgt. Michael J. MacLeod
    Afghanistan May 16, 2012

    Humpin’ It…And Jammin’ It…

    Reuters
    Pacific May 16, 2012

    China’s ‘Security Dilemma’ Risks Arms Race in Asia

    TOKYO – A shooting war with China may not be inevitable, but a dangerous arms escalation seems a dead certainty. That’s the take from a rare public discussion here this week among naval experts from Japan, the U.S. and China.

    Chris Hondros / Getty Images
    Military Mental Health May 16, 2012

    Mental Ills Top Reason U.S. Troops Now Hospitalized

    Four of the top five non-combat medical conditions sending troops to the hospital in 2011 were mental ailments, the Pentagon reports:

  • pintortwo

    Mark, please let me know if you disagree.
    .
    We intervened to prevent a massacre from happening, not to stop one already in progress. The rebel force was never that large or strong, therefore, absent our entry, is it possible that Qaddafi’s forces would have arrived and, due to their overwhelming strength, ended the rebellion with limited causalities and arrests? IOW, is it possible that our involvement prolonged the conflict and led to more civilian deaths?
    .
    If so, the Pentagon had to see this possibility, so why do it? Perhaps we should conclude that the goal was to get bogged down and “hamstr(ing) that air war so badly” that further commitments are necessary (including ground forces) until eventually Qaddafi is removed and an enduring US presence remains.

  • http://whitsd.wordpress.com whitsd

    It seems as though our intervention may have perhaps caused less deaths in the short term, more in the middle, and less in the long term (if your end scenario exists). In the short term, Qaddafi would have used overwhelming force and effectively leveled any rebel town, causing overwhelming body counts. Looking a bit longer, the US has definitely sustained the conflict which will lead to more deaths. In the long term, Qaddafi will hunt down any opposition in a similar fashion, so there will be a high body count unless the US breaks its promise and uses ground troops (resulting in even more deaths).

    In any case, there is no end goal so the US does not want to be in charge when it inevitably goes bad. Then it can step back in with its power and be the heroes if NATO decides to escalate. While your idea about this as an excuse to intervene seems plausible I believe there is an alternate explanation.

    Obama just kicked off his election campaign, and he does not want to be stuck with the same wartime run that Bush had. With an already war weary populace, starting off his run in the middle of a third war would be unwise. He wants to back off, and get re-elected. Simply Washington as usual.

blog comments powered by Disqus