British military officers to be sent to Libya

[dipsydoodle]

Source: BBC News 19 April 2011 Last updated at 13:46

British military officers will be sent to Libya to advise rebels fighting Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's forces, the UK government has said.

Foreign Secretary William Hague said the group would be deployed to the opposition stronghold of Benghazi.

The BBC understands that 10 UK officers will provide logistics and intelligence training, part of a joint British and French operation.

Mr Hague stressed that the officers would not be involved in any fighting.


Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13132654

[xchrom]

1. Recommend

[psychopomp]

2. I'm of the opinion that SAS or their equivalent have been there for weeks

No evidence, but certainly somebody has been on the ground training and/or observing training these past couple of weeks. Qataris are rumored to be there already, doing training and facilitating the professionalization of the rebel military.

[dipsydoodle]

3. That may well be the case

Recent photos indicate they now know which way round to hold an AK47.

[EFerrari]

15. CIA reportedly was there less than 2 weeks into the unrest.

Who knows how long they have really been there.

[PurityOfEssence]

4. British troops go to Libya amid 'Vietnam' warnings

Source: The Telegraph

The deployment of military advisers is the first move to arise from Mr Cameron’s request for “creative thinking” over Libya and officials said more announcements could follow.

It is understood that Special Forces attacks on Gaddafi forces and moves to arm the rebels are both under consideration.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8461863/British-troops-go-to-Libya-amid-Vietnam-warnings.html

---

Step by step...

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

5. Oil field by oil field...

Slowly I turn...

[Ghost Dog]

13. One potential disastrous outcome:

Brits and French restart squabbling with fighting against each other.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lRlmA1d1Rwo

[Igel]

14. You're just saying that to cheer me up.

Yes, I have a strange sense of humor.

[alp227]

6. The Guardian: "Fears of Libya mission creep as British-French advisory team sent to Benghazi"

"The UK-French team will advise the rebels on intelligence-gathering, logistics, and communications. In an indication of the serious nature of the move, the team will be run by a joint force headquarters, the Guardian has learned."

Full story: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/19/libya-fears-mission-creep-benghazi

[No Elephants]

7. "Bay of Pigs meets Vietnam meets Iraq," said my gut from the first talk of a "no fly" zone.

[EFerrari]

17. Me, too. And nothing since has persuaded me that my gut was wrong. n/t

[Baclava]

24. but but - it's just a little 'no-fly' zone - we'll be done in "days, not weeks"

"Gawd save British Petroleum!" - signed, The Queen

...and The War drags on

[The_Casual_Observer]

8. They aren't giving up on this shit, it's such a transparent oil grab

that they aren't even bothering to justify it anymore.

[bongbong]

9. The name

I bet the name of the operation is "Operation Independent Libya"

[Keith Bee]

10. At least it isn't us.....

...yet

[jakeXT]

11. Mr Cameron ... is said to be becoming “increasingly impatient” and anxious about the stalemate.

Interesting ... is he pounding on his desk like another man from history ?

At least Libya has no jungle.

[ikri]

12. Cameron was hoping for a swift victory

We have some local elections coming up here in the next few weeks, as well as a referendum on changing the voting system. I'm sure that Cameron would have been hoping for a quick victory where he (and Sarkozy) could come out looking good, having helped topple a dictator. It probably wouldn't have done any harm to the Tories in the polls and might have helped gloss over some of the cracks in the coalition government.

[EFerrari]

16. These chicken hawk idiots are unteachable. n/t

[CHIMO]

18. Fighting over the scraps

It is not about oil. It is about decline of the Empire.

Phyllis Bennis: U.K. Sends Troops into Libya as International Coalition Expands Mission to Include Regime Change

PHYLLIS BENNIS: You know, this is exactly the kind of escalation that many of us warned against on the evening that the U.N. first passed its no-fly zone resolution that had the language "all necessary measures," that it would lead to boots on the ground. There have already been boots on the ground in the form of intelligence agencies, the CIA and others, who are already operating on the ground. Now we’ll see it on a larger scale. What we’re seeing is a clear commitment on the part of NATO and the U.S. for regime change—exactly what the U.N. resolution was not designed to do. And what we’re hearing now is a sort of playing with words among NATO countries—the U.K. and France, in particular, that had been the most aggressive in wanting to escalate and take an official position in support of regime change in Libya—and instead of saying, "Well, that is not within the NATO mandate or the U.N. mandate," because countries like Turkey, and as well as Germany, have played a very key role in trying to limit the mandate of the international intervention, instead they’re simply saying, "We’re going to go in unilaterally alongside the NATO contingent, the NATO military strike," very much what the U.S. has done historically in places like Bosnia, places like Afghanistan, places like Haiti, where it has sent intervention—military intervention forces, air strikes, etc., alongside international engagement.

And it not only confuses the issue of who’s in charge—that’s not my concern. My concern is that it leads to an inevitable escalation in the interest of those outside powerful Western countries in their effort for regime change and gaining control. In the situation in Libya, this is not like Iraq. This is not a, quote, "war for oil." Gaddafi’s regime was already in bed with the U.S., with Italy, with the U.K., with France, with Western oil companies, Western governments, since his regime’s rehabilitation of 2002, 2003. So the problem was not "We can’t get access to Libyan oil." It’s far more complex. It’s part of a response to the growing—the rise of the Arab Spring and the end of the U.S.-backed dictatorships that have controlled the Arab world for the last 50 years. With the demise of that system, because of this extraordinary popular uprising of people throughout the Arab world that are saying "No more," that are overthrowing the years of fear in their countries, overthrowing dictatorships, the U.S. is now looking, along with its allies, for new ways of making sure that they will still control how that region, as a whole, will be governed. Will it be governed by pro-Western, neoliberal, pro-oil-company kinds of governments? Or will it be governed by something else that represents a very different interpretation of what democracy looks like, of what an economy should look like? These are questions that Libyans should be deciding for themselves. The problem is, when you have British ground troops and American jets and NATO forces controlling, NATO forces acting as the air strike component of the opposition in Libya, then, inevitably, when the fighting is over, you will have those forces in control.

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/4/19/phyllis_bennis_uk_sends_troops_into
http://play.rbn.com/?url=demnow/demnow/demand/2011/april/video/dnB20110419a.rm&proto=rtsp&start=00:44:31

[classysassy]

19. America to the rescue

When the Libyans unite and start kicking British buns,guess who will save their worthless asses?" Oh what fools we Americans be ".

[daleo]

21. Maybe that's part of the plan. n/t

[Ghost Dog]

22. Lead you into yet more quicksand.

Yeah.

[daleo]

23. I mean it might be a big show between the various NATO powers

Where everyone knows their part, and plays their part, with the end result being the "unfortunate requirement" of sending in troops from several nations. It's not so much being led into quicksand as it is providing an ageed upon pretext to insert ground troops..

[daleo]

20. Just advisors

I mean, that has never been known to escalate, has it? Viet Nam, you say...