The president has sent in the drones to enforce the Libyan no-fly zones:
The U.S. said it is starting to use armed drones to carry out missile strikes against Col. Moammar Gadhafi’s troops in Libya, despite the Obama administration’s vow to leave such offensive missions to its allies.
Defense officials said the airstrikes—which will target Libyan troops hiding near civilians in urban areas—were necessary to respond to a shift in tactics by the Libyan military. Allied aircraft have proved unable to fully protect civilians and rebel forces under heavy attack from Gadhafi loyalists. The drones can get closer, allowing more-precise strikes, and loiter longer, giving them a better chance of finding hidden targets.
“The president has said where we have unique capabilities, he is willing to use those,” Defense Secretary Robert Gates said Thursday, as he announced the drone strikes.
The U.S. is putting two Predator drones, each equipped with two Hellfire missiles, in Libyan airspace around the clock. The first Predator attack sorties were launched Thursday, though after the aircraft took off, weather conditions prevented any strikes.
Gadhaffi was using indiscriminate air strikes against rebellious cities, so the UN imposed a no-fly zone to protect non-combatant civilians. No-fly zones require battlefield preparation in the form of the suppression of enemy air defenses. From there we went to kinetic strikes against armored columns, and no it appears we will enforce the no-fly zones with unmanned systems which carry exclusively air-to-ground weapons. Oh yeah, and boots on deck for our coalition partners.
Once you get head wrapped around the notion that we’re no longer doing the no-fly zone thing, but actively taking sides in an internal revolt, this makes a lot of sense. UASs provide persistent, focused intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance, and – having been armed – the ability to reach out and touch someone with minimal collateral damage effects. They also have the added “advantage” of letting general officers direct tactical actions from air-conditioned trailers in Las Vegas. Baby.
But we will no more end the violence with two Predators than we will find Osama bin Laden with fleets of them. It’s a game of whack-a-mole, and while it may be antiseptically satisfying to those who feel that “we just have to do some thing” and “what we’re doing doesn’t appear to be working, let’s try something else”, this just kicks the can of ineffectiveness further down the road.
Leaving me to wonder, what next? The choices seem to be accept a violent status quo, withdraw in humiliation or continue to escalate.
Sir,
FWIW (and your mileage may vary) I’ve been told by some folks who’ve been on the ground in the ‘Stan and Iraq that the bad guys in that part of the world have a thoroughly pathological hatred of the drones. Although they’ve never heard of Clarke’s Law (“Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”), they’re firm believers in it. If a couple of Loyalist CPs get whacked out of nowhere, people will start looking over their shoulders and finding reasons not to shoot at the rebels.
Just my .02.
Mike
Ah yes, the unblinking 24/7 eye. That, more than the Hellfires, is what they are bringing. Obvious. really, and the only reason not to have done so already is that every current asset is being used somewhere else where it is already needed. So we’re sacrificing ISR in Iraq, Afpak, or who knows where else.
He sent in the drones? Does that mean that Pelosi, Reid and Biden are all over there?
Marine6:
Be nice, don’t insult the bees.
Paul
If they are indeed over there, Marine6 it’s more like “Send in the CLOWNS.”
I think most of us realized before this whole Libyan thing started that it would most likely end up a real goat rope, no matter who got involved.
But the most disturbing thing to me has been the realization just how hollow the NATO capabilities are without the US doing almost all of the heavy lifting…..and I’m not talking just in terms of logistics here! NATO is turning out to be an empty shell….under armed, under supplied and not really very well led. Good thing the Ruskies never tried it for real.
Here’s what’s next: courtesy of smart diplomacy:
http://gatewaypundit.rightnetwork.com/2011/04/allahu-akbar-our-new-rebel-allies-behead-a-libyan-soldier/
Alfred E. Neuman was a prophet!!!
Having gotten into this thing without thinking things through, we are now making it (not thinking it through) a tradition with near doctrinal status.
A possible alternative exit would be a suggestion from the Vietnam War: declare victory, then leave.
Considering the current administration has -at best- a feeble concern for accuracy, it should work quite well for them. I don’t doubt the fellow-traveling media would be glad to push the idea.
So, we are there defending oil for France & Britain?
What “National Interest” does the USA have there?
From my seat in the house: NONE!
If we wanted to whack Ghadaffi(however you want to spell it today) we could just do it, and walk away.
Lockerbie is justification enough.
This is bull sh1t!
I think there’s a twofold reason we’re there. One is back scratching for France & UK support in Iraq and A-stan. Secondly, winning points and reversing the public image of the US in that region by helping the underdogs – our reputation got singed on the international scene with how GWII went down. Not to mention we have an axe to grind with ole Qadhafi for Lockerbie and Berlin…
Besides the sustained stare value (which is huge), an MQ-1 getting shot down is less $$ and stress than a fast mover with a crew that now need other folks to risk life and limb to come fetch.
my $0.02.