AFRICOM Related News Clips 14 March 2011

8/7/2019 AFRICOM Related News Clips 14 March 2011

1/21

United States Africa CommandPublic Affairs Office14 March 2011

USAFRICOM - related news stories

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

Gen. Wesley Clark Says Libya Doesn't Meet The Test For U.S. Military Action (Washington Post Op-Ed)(Libya) In March of 1974, when I was a young Army captain, I was sitting in aconference on civil-military relations at Brown University. Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) was

onstage expounding on the lessons from Vietnam about military interventions. He thenstopped and looked right at me and the four West Point cadets at my side. "You, theyoung officer and cadets sitting there - never in your lifetimes will you see us interveneabroad," I recall him saying. "We've learned that lesson." For all his brilliance, Aspincouldn't have been more wrong.

Gates says U.S. military could enforce a no-fly zone in Libya if Obama ordered one

(Washington Post)(Libya) Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Saturday that the U.S. military, alreadyfighting two wars in Muslim nations, would have no trouble enforcing a no-fly zoneover Libya if President Obama orders one.

U.S. to Name a Liaison to Libyan Rebels (NY Times)(Libya) President Obama said Friday that he would appoint a special representative toLibyas rebel leaders and that the Treasury Department had placed sanctions on ninemore family members and friends of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in an effort to force theLibyan leader to resign.

US extends sanctions toGaddafi family, officials (Reuters)(Libya) The U.S. Treasury Department, moving to add pressure on Libyan leaderMuammar Gaddafi, said on Friday it had extended asset-freeze sanctions to his wife,

four of his sons and four senior officials in his government.

Arab League asks U.N. for no-fly zone over Libya (Washington Post)(Libya) The Arab League called on the U.N. Security Council on Saturday toimmediately impose a no-fly zone over Libya and announced that it was recognizingthe rebel movement as that countrys legitimate government.


2/21

Libyan rebels flee Port Brega as Kadafi's forces advance (LA Times)(Libya) Benghazi, Ajdabiya and Tripoli - Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Kadafipushed deeper into rebellious eastern Libya on Sunday, overrunning an important oiltown while forcing lightly armed rebels back toward the opposition stronghold ofBenghazi.

Somalia Needs U.S. Aid to Fight Rebels, Prime Minister Mohamed Says on CNN (Bloomberg)(Somalia) Somalia needs more equipment and other resources from the U.S., not more

troops, Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed said.

Somali pirates cut ransoms to clear hijacked ships (Reuters)(Somalia) Somali pirates said on Sunday they would lower some of their ransomdemands to get a faster turnover of ships they hijack in the Indian Ocean.

African Union backs Ouattara as president in Ivory Coast (Christian Science Monitor)(Ivory Coast) After months of indecision, the African Union has formally backedopposition candidate Ouattara as Ivory Coast president. Ouattara now has to figure outhow to take over a government that the former president refuses to give up

Ivory Coast Rebels Take Over Another Town(VOA)(Ivory Coast) Rebels allied with Ivory Coast's internationally recognized president,Alassane Ouattara, have taken control of another western town from troops loyal toincumbent President Laurent Gbagbo.

South Sudan Accuses North of Ouster Plot, Genocide Plan(VOA News)(Sudan)South Sudan has suspended pre-partition talks with the north, accusingKhartoum of planning to topple the south's government and kill its people.

U.S. officials are at odds over Libya outcome (LA Times)(Libya) Director of National Intelligence James Clapper expects Moammar Kadafi toultimately defeat rebels, but the White House has a different view.

UN News Service Africa Briefs

Full Articles on UN Websitey

Server down (error says script not working)

-------------------------------------------------------------------------UPCOMING EVENTS OF INTEREST:

WHEN/WHERE: Wednesday, March 16, 2011; 9:30 am to 4:00 pm; The BrookingsInstituteWHAT: Defense Challenges and Future Opportunities


3/21

WHO: Peter W. Singer, Director, 21st Century Defense Initiative; Ted Piccone, SeniorFellow and Deputy Director of Foreign Policy; COL Timothy McKernan, ExxonMobileSC Corp Fellow and 13 additional DOD/Brookings panelists.Info: http://www.brookings.edu/events/2011/0316_defense_challenges.aspx----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FULL ARTICLE TEXT

Gen. Wesley Clark Says Libya Doesn't Meet The Test For U.S. Military Action (Washington Post Op-Ed)By General Wesley K. ClarkMarch 11, 2011

In March of 1974, when I was a young Army captain, I was sitting in a conference oncivil-military relations at Brown University. Rep. Les Aspin (D-Wis.) was onstage

expounding on the lessons from Vietnam about military interventions. He then stoppedand looked right at me and the four West Point cadets at my side. "You, the youngofficer and cadets sitting there - never in your lifetimes will you see us interveneabroad," I recall him saying. "We've learned that lesson."

For all his brilliance, Aspin couldn't have been more wrong.

We have launched many military interventions since then. And today, as MoammarGaddafi looks vulnerable and Libya descends into violence, familiar voices areshouting, once again: "Quick, intervene, do something!" It could be a low-cost win fordemocracy in the region. But before we aid the Libyan rebels or establish a no-fly zone,let's review what we've learned about intervening since we pulled out of Vietnam.

The past 37 years have been replete with U.S. interventions. Some have succeeded, suchas our actions in Grenada (1983), Panama (1989), the Persian Gulf War (1991) and theBalkans (1995-2000). Some were awful blunders, such as the attempted hostage rescuein Iran (1980), landing the Marines in Lebanon (1982) or the Somalia intervention (1992-94).

Some worked in the short run, but not the longer term - such as the occupation of Haitiin 1994. Others still hang in the balance, such as the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq,

consuming hundreds of billions of dollars and wrecking thousands of American lives.Along the way, we've bombed a few tyrants such as Saddam Hussein and Gaddafihimself, operated through proxies in Central America, and stood ready with fly-overs,deployments, mobility exercises and sail-bys across the globe.

I've thought about military interventions for a long time - from before my service inVietnam to writing a master's thesis at Fort Leavenworth to leading NATO forces in the


4/21

Kosovo war. In considering Libya, I find myself returning to the guidelines forintervention laid out by Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger in 1984. The world haschanged a great deal since then, so I've adapted and updated his vision to develop myown rules for when the United States should deploy its blood and treasure inoperations far from home.

Understand the national interests at stake, and decide if the result is worth the cost.

We went into Lebanon with a reinforced battalion of Marines in 1982 because webelieved that it was in our national interest to stabilize the situation after the Israelishad been forced out of Beirut. But after the terrorist bombing of their barracks killed 241U.S. service members the next year, we pulled out. After the tragedy, any benefitsseemed to pale in light of the cost and continuing risks.

In 1999, when we launched the NATO air campaign against Serbian ethnic cleansing in

Kosovo, President Bill Clinton had to state publicly that he didn't intend to use groundtroops. He did so in an effort to limit the costs of an initiative that the public andCongress did not consider to be in our nation's vital interest. The administration and I,as the NATO commander in Europe, were in a difficult position, and Serbian dictatorSlobodan Milosevic knew it. But what Milosevic didn't understand was that once webegan the strikes - with NATO troops deployed in neighboring countries and theDayton Peace Agreement to enforce in Bosnia - NATO couldn't afford to lose. And theUnited States had a vital interest in NATO's success, even if we had a less-than-vitalinterest in Kosovo.

In 2001, when the United States went into Afghanistan, it was clear that we had to strikeback after the attacks of Sept. 11. And we're still there, despite all the ambiguities anddifficulties, because we have a vital interest in combating al-Qaeda and similar terroristgroups there and across the border in Pakistan.

How do we apply this test to Libya? Protecting access to oil supplies has become a vitalinterest, but Libya doesn't sell much oil to the United States, and what has been cut offis apparently being replaced by Saudi production. Other national interests are morecomplex. Of course, we want to support democratic movements in the region, but wehave two such operations already underway - in Iraq and Afghanistan. Then there arethe humanitarian concerns. It is hard to stand by as innocent people are caught up inviolence, but that's what we did when civil wars in Africa killed several million andwhen fighting in Darfur killed hundreds of thousands. So far, the violence in Libya isnot significant in comparison. Maybe we could earn a cheap "victory," but, on whateverbasis we intervened, it would become the United States vs. Gaddafi, and we would becommitted to fight to his finish. That could entail a substantial ground operation, somecasualties and an extended post-conflict peacekeeping presence.


5/21

Know your purpose and how the proposed military action will achieve it.

In 1989, when the United States wanted regime change in Panama, a powerful U.S.force took over the country, captured dictator Manuel Noriega and enabled thedemocratic opposition to form a new government. Panama today is a thriving

democracy.

On the other hand, in Somalia in 1992-94, we started out on a humanitarian mission,gradually transitioned to greater use of military power and then had a tragic tacticalstumble trying to arrest a warlord. The loss of 18 Americans caused national outrage,and eventually we pulled out. We experienced classic mission creep, withoutreconsidering the strategy or the means to achieve it.

In Libya, if the objective is humanitarian, then we would work with both sides and notget engaged in the matter of who wins. Just deliver relief supplies, treat the injured and

let the Libyans settle it. But if we want to get rid of Gaddafi, a no-fly zone is unlikely tobe sufficient - it is a slick way to slide down the slope to deeper intervention.

Determine the political endgame before intervening.

In Haiti in 1994, it was a matter of getting rid of the military junta that had forced outthe democratically elected president and restoring a democratic government. Weprepared and threatened an invasion, we used it as leverage in negotiations, and withinfour weeks of its start, President Jean-Bertrand Aristide was back in power.

But in Iraq in 2003, we failed to chart a clear path to democracy before taking action. Soafter we toppled Hussein, we lacked a ready alternative. Eight years later we've come along way, but at a very high price.

In Libya, we don't know who the rebels really are or how a legitimate governmentwould be formed if Gaddafi were pushed out. Perhaps we will have a better sensewhen Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton meets with rebel leaders, as she isscheduled to do this coming week. In a best-case scenario, there would be aconstitutional convention, voter lists, political parties and internationally supervisedfree and fair elections. But there could also be a violent scramble for authority in whichthe most organized, secretive and vicious elements take over. We are not well-equippedto handle that kind of struggle. And once we intervene, Libya's problems wouldbecome our responsibility.

Get U.S. public support and diplomatic and legal authority, and get allies engaged.

Offensive war is, in general, illegal. In the Persian Gulf War, Iraq's actions in 1990 werea clear case of aggression; we obtained full U.N. support. We had a congressional


6/21

resolution. And we enjoyed the overwhelming backing of our allies and Arab partners.They even paid most of the cost of Operation Desert Storm, to the tune of tens ofbillions of dollars. The resulting military action was widely hailed as a legitimate andmoral victory.

In 1999 in Kosovo, the United States and NATO had a humanitarian U.N. resolutionbacking our actions. The American public was mostly unengaged, but NATO was ableto wield its diplomatic power and the incremental use of force to compel Milosevic'ssurrender. (The coup de grace was his indictment for war crimes by the InternationalCriminal Tribunal on Yugoslavia.)

By contrast, going it alone, without substantial international legal and diplomaticsupport, is a recipe for trouble. Our haste and clumsiness going into Iraq in 2003 -without a compelling reason to intervene, in my view - has cost us dearly.

In Libya, Gaddafi has used and supported terrorism, murdered Americans andrepressed his people for 40 years. The American public may want to see him go. But hiscurrent actions aren't an attack on the United States or any other country. On what basiswould we seek congressional support and international authorization to intervene in acivil war? Do we have the endorsement of the Arab League? A U.N. Security Councilresolution?

Avoid U.S. and civilian casualties.

In Kosovo, NATO had the upper hand from the outset. We weren't losing aircraft (we

lost only two in combat out of 36,000 sorties flown over 78 days); we never lost a soldieror airman in combat; and because we minimized innocent civilian casualties and thedestruction of nonmilitary property, we maintained our moral authority.

But once Americans start dying, public tolerance for military action wanes sharply.We've seen it time and again, from the aborted attempt to rescue our hostages in Iran in1980 to Afghanistan today. Intervening successfully isn't so much a matter of how manytroops and planes you use, it's about mustering decisive power - military, diplomatic,legal, economic, moral - while avoiding the casualties and collateral damage thatdiscredit the mission.

A no-fly zone in Libya may seem straightforward at first, but if Gaddafi continues toadvance, the time will come for airstrikes, extended bombing and ground troops - astretch for an already overcommitted force. A few unfortunate incidents can quashpublic support.

Once you decide to do it, get it over with.


7/21

Use decisive force - military, economic, diplomatic and legal. The longer an operationtakes, the more can go wrong. In 1983, we went in with overwhelming force against anattempted communist takeover in Grenada. With 20,000 U.S. troops against 600 Cubanmilitary engineers and some ill-trained locals, it was over in three days. The Cubanswere out, the American students who had been held hostage were freed, and casualties

were minimal. Grenada transitioned to democracy.

The operation in Panama lasted about three weeks; the ground fight in the Gulf Waronly 100 hours. We pushed the limit in Kosovo with a 78-day air campaign, butfortunately, Milosevic ran out of options before NATO had to commit to planning aninvasion.

Given these rules, what is the wisest course of action in Libya? To me, it seems we haveno clear basis for action. Whatever resources we dedicate for a no-fly zone wouldprobably be too little, too late. We would once again be committing our military to force

regime change in a Muslim land, even though we can't quite bring ourselves to say it.So let's recognize that the basic requirements for successful intervention simply don'texist, at least not yet: We don't have a clearly stated objective, legal authority,committed international support or adequate on-the-scene military capabilities, andLibya's politics hardly foreshadow a clear outcome.

We should have learned these lessons from our long history of intervention. We don'tneed Libya to offer us a refresher course in past mistakes.----------------------------------Gates says U.S. military could enforce a no-fly zone in Libya if Obama ordered one

(Washington Post)By Peter Finn and Scott WilsonMarch 13, 1:46 AMDefense Secretary Robert M. Gates said Saturday that the U.S. military, already fightingtwo wars in Muslim nations, would have no trouble enforcing a no-fly zone over Libyaif President Obama orders one.

The comments appeared designed to counter the criticism surrounding his earlierremarks on the issue and came as the Arab League endorsed a no-fly zone to protectLibyas civilians from forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi.

Gates indicated earlier this month that the creation of a no-fly zone would be a bigoperation. NATO would need to deploy an array of air power to target not onlydefense systems and fighter jets, but also the low-flying attack helicopters that Gaddafihas used against rebels and civilian protesters.

The assessment drew criticism, in particular, from those who favor a more aggressiveAmerican response to the Libyan conflict, now tilting back in favor of Gaddafis better-


8/21

armed forces. Some accused Gates of inflating the dangers and scope of a no-fly zonemission over a large desert country with a small population.

Speaking Saturday to reporters as he returned to Washington from Manama, Bahrain,where the Navys 5th Fleet is based, Gates said, A little bit too much has been read into

some of my remarks last week.

If we are directed to impose a no-fly zone, we have the resources to do it, he said.This is not a question of whether we or our allies can do this. We can do it. Thequestion is whether its a wise thing to do. And thats the discussion thats going on at apolitical level. But I just want to make clear we have the capacity to do it.

While enforcing a no-fly zone over Libya is easily within NATOs military capability,there is concern that it would have little real effect on the current fighting. The UnitedStates and its allies would then be forced to consider further military action to support

the rebels, according to some military and regional experts.

Are you willing to escalate if it doesnt work? asked Anthony H. Cordesman of theCenter for Strategic and International Studies, who has studied Libyas militarycapabilities. Will they even bother to challenge a no-fly zone?

Cordesman noted that Gaddafi has not relied heavily on air power to battle the rebelsand could choose not to fly his Soviet-era fighter jets while continuing to attack theopposition with artillery and ground forces.

Retired Air Force Gen. Charles A. Horner said the administration should ask itself whyit wants to intervene, and what it expects to achieve, rather than how it plans tointervene. Horner said those basic questions have yet to be clearly answered.

The air power that hes using now has some impact on the rebels, but what they aredying from is artillery, Horner said. Next step, you say lets start bombing theartillery. The next step would be to take out his tanks. The next step would be targetinghis ground forces. And then youve sided with the rebels in an all-out war. But what isthe cost and what are our interests?

Horner said NATO can effectively strike even very low-flying helicopters. But witheach expansion of the kind of targets that can be hit, he said, the complexity andlethality of the operation increases.

That carries the risk of collateral damage and a backlash against the use of Western, andparticularly American, military power in another Muslim country.


9/21

Before the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, when the United States enforced a no-fly zoneover the Kurdish north and Shiite south, American war planes hit any air defense radarthat locked on to the aircraft. But the campaign cost civilian lives, according to theassessment of a Washington Post reporter who traveled in Iraq in 2000.

France, which backs a no-fly zone over Libya, suspended its participation in the no-flyzone over Iraq because of civilian deaths.

Gaddafi is not beyond orchestrating collateral damage for political advantage,according to a report by George Friedman, chief executive of the Stratfor intelligenceanalysis group.

When search radars and especially targeting radars are turned on, the response mustbe instantaneous, while the radar is radiating (and therefore vulnerable) and before itcan engage, Friedman wrote.

That means there will be no opportunity to determine whether the sites are located inresidential areas or close to public facilities such as schools or hospitals, he wrote.Previous regimes, hoping to garner international support, have deliberately placedtheir systems near such facilities to force what the international media would consideran atrocity.

Michael Rubin, a resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute, said a no-flyzone is now essential to help topple Gaddafi, who if allowed to hold on to power wouldbe likely to return as a threat to U.S. interests by again sponsoring terrorism.

If Gaddafi is able to reassert power, it is not as if we are going to be able to go back tothe status quo. He is going to cast aside any moderation, Rubin said. We might have areversion back to the instability and terrorism of the 1980s.--------------------------U.S. to Name a Liaison to Libyan Rebels (NY Times)By HELENE COOPERMarch 11, 2011WASHINGTON President Obama said Friday that he would appoint a specialrepresentative to Libyas rebel leaders and that the Treasury Department had placedsanctions on nine more family members and friends of Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi in aneffort to force the Libyan leader to resign.

The move is significant because although the United States has not formally recognizedthe rebels as legitimate representatives of the Libyan people, the appointment of aspecial representative is bound to be interpreted as a move toward de facto recognition.


10/21

France was the first country to recognize the Libyan National Council, the rebelsshadow government, as the representative of the Libyan people on Thursday, after ameeting between President Nicolas Sarkozy and two representatives of the movement,which has its headquarters in Benghazi, Libya.

At the news conference on Friday where Mr. Obama announced the move towardengagement with the rebels, he said the international community was tightening thenoose on Colonel Qaddafi through sanctions and other actions.

He said he was considering a no-flight zone, but administration officials continued toindicate privately that the situation in Libya would have to get much worse before Mr.Obama would risk the lives of American pilots to take out Libyas air-defense systems.

I have not taken any options off the table, Mr. Obama said. But when it comes toU.S. military action, whether its a no-fly zone or other options, youve got to balance

costs versus benefits, and I dont take those decisions lightly.

Separately, the Treasury Department announced additional sanctions on ColonelQaddafis family and high-ranking members of his government, including Abu ZaydUmar Dorda, the director of Libyas external security organization, and Abdullah al-Senussi, the chief of military intelligence. Mr. Senussi, the Treasury Department said ina statement, organized mass killings in Benghazi and is allegedly responsible for thedeaths of 1,200 Islamists in Abu Selim prison.

The Treasury Department also froze the American assets of Defense Minister Abu Bakr

Yunis Jabir and Matuq Muhammad Matuq, the secretary general of the PeoplesCommittee for Public Works.

Colonel Qaddafis wife and more of his children were also added to the list. Two weeksago, the United States froze the assets of Colonel Qaddafi and four of his sons, but didnot single out other Libyan officials. So far, Treasury officials said, the United States hasfrozen $32 billion in Libyan government assets.

David Cohen, acting under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, said thatthe moves on Friday should send a strong signal to those responsible for the violenceinflicted by Qaddafi and his government that the United States will continue steps toincrease pressure and to hold them accountable.------------------US extends sanctions toGaddafi family, officials (Reuters)by David LawdeMar 11, 2011; 9:16pm GMT


11/21

WASHINGTON - The U.S. Treasury Department, moving to add pressure on Libyanleader Muammar Gaddafi, said on Friday it had extended asset-freeze sanctions to hiswife, four of his sons and four senior officials in his government.

The Treasury said it added Gaddafi's wife, Safia Farkash, and four children, three of

whom hold senior military and state company positions, to its blacklist under two-week-old sanctions against Gaddafi's regime.

The action bans U.S. persons from conducting transactions with them and seeks tofreeze assets that they may have under U.S. jurisdiction.

Also blacklisted were Libya's Minister of Defense, Abu Bakr Yunis Jabir, and its directorof military intelligence, Abdullah Al-Senussi, as well as the director of its ExternalSecurity Organization and the head of its public works committee.

In addition to aiding the Gaddafi regime's attacks on Libyan protesters, the Treasuryaccused Al-Senussi of organizing mass killings in Benghazi and recruiting foreignmercenaries fighting on Gaddafi's behalf.

The moves bring the total amount of assets sought to be frozen by the U.S. sanctions tomore than $32 billion, the Treasury said.

"Today's designation should send a strong signal to those responsible for the violenceinflicted by Gaddafi and his government that the United States will continue steps toincrease pressure and to hold them accountable," according to a statement from David

Cohen, Treasury's acting under secretary for terrorism and financial intelligence.

Gaddafi's sons who were blacklisted are Hannibal Gaddafi, who heads the GeneralMaritime Transport Co of Libya; Saadi Gaddafi, Commander of Special Forces and headof the Libyan Football Federation; Muhammad Gaddafi, chairman of the General Postand Telecommunications Co and head of the country's Olympic committee, and Saif al-Arab Gaddafi.----------------------Arab League asks U.N. for no-fly zone over Libya (Washington Post)By Richard Leiby and Muhammad MansourMarch 12, 1:35 PMCAIRO The Arab League called on the U.N. Security Council on Saturday toimmediately impose a no-fly zone over Libya and announced that it was recognizingthe rebel movement as that countrys legitimate government.

The move could significantly raise pressure on the United States and European nationsto act in response to the conflict that has erupted in recent weeks as rebels have seizedhalf of Libya and Col. Moammar Gaddafis security forces have struck back with


12/21

massive firepower. NATO has said an Arab endorsement of the no-fly zone was aprecondition for taking such action.

Arab League Secretary General Amr Moussa announced the leagues decision in Cairoon Saturday evening, describing the no fly-zone as a preventive measure whose chief

goal is to protect Libyan citizens.

The main priority right now is to stop the deadly situation, Moussa said.

In a statement, the White House said Saturday that we welcome this important step bythe Arab League, which strengthens the international pressure on Gaddafi and supportfor the Libyan people.

The international community is unified in sending a clear message that the violence inLibya must stop, and that the Gaddafi regime must be held accountable, the statement

said. The United States will continue to advance our efforts to pressure Gaddafi, tosupport the Libyan opposition, and to prepare for all contingencies, in closecoordination with our international partners.

The Arab Leagues decision came after 51 / 2 hours of closed-door deliberations by theforeign ministers of 21 nations. Representatives of Gaddafis government, which theleague had suspended this month as a member, were not invited.

Addressing a packed news conference at the leagues headquarters, Moussa also saidthe Arab League would begin working immediately with an interim council established

by rebels in the eastern city of Benghazi.

To buttress their extraordinary request for international military action against one oftheir own members, the ministers issued as statement saying the measure was alsoneeded to maintain the safety and sovereignty of neighboring nations.

In declaring Gaddafis regime illegitimate, Moussa referred to a section of the statementthat cited the fatal violations and serious crimes at the hands of Libyan authorities thatmake [the government] illegal.

Moussa, who this week declared he would run for president of Egypt, seemeddetermined at the briefing to avoid describing the no-fly zone in military terms,although such an operation could require aircraft enforcing the zone to engage Libyanaircraft in combat.

Gaddafi is just one of the autocratic leaders who have become targets of popularuprisings throughout the region. But taking action against him does not open the door


13/21

to other military intercession, said Omans foreign minister, Yusuf bin Alawi Abdullah,who joined Moussa at the briefing.

We refuse any foreign intervention in any Arab affairs, he said when asked whetherthe resolution could be applied to other Arab states.

Outside the leagues headquarters on Tahrir Square, Egyptians and Libyans wavedsigns describing Gaddafi as a genocidal butcher and displaying grisly photos of deadLibyans. But they also expressed wariness about any Western military involvement inthe conflict. We are not calling for American intervention, said Omar Mohamed, a 21-year-old student. But they should give weapons to the rebel fighters.

Officials of Libyas so-called government in waiting welcomed the Arab Leaguesendorsement of a no-fly zone and said they hoped the United States and other Westernpowers will follow, adding pressure on the U.N. Security Council to impose a no-fly

zone. Western powers have stressed they would not take military action unless theyhad the approval of Libyas neighbors.

We hope the Europeans will deliver now. This changes things a lot, said MustafaGheriani, a spokesman for the Libyan National Council, the provisional leadershiprunning eastern Libya. We hope it will change the American position, but most of allthe European position.

Abdul Hafidh Ghoga, vice chairman of the Libyan National Council, said that if a no-flyzone is imposed, the rebels will prevail over Gaddafis forces. But he warned that if

Western powers do not take military action, the rebels were prepared to purchase moreweapons from other countries to protect their revolution.

If the international community chooses to play the role of bystander, with Libyan citiesbeing destroyed and Libyan people being killed, then we will have to defend ourselveson our own, Ghoga said. If no steps are taken, we have to take the decision to armourselves as best as we can.

Ghoga said the rebels have made contacts with other nations that might provide themwith weapons, if needed, although he declined to name those countries.-----------------------------------Libyan rebels flee Port Brega as Kadafi's forces advance (LA Times)By David Zucchino, Jeffrey Fleishman and Borzou DaragahiMarch 14, 2011Benghazi, Ajdabiya and Tripoli - Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Kadafipushed deeper into rebellious eastern Libya on Sunday, overrunning an important oiltown while forcing lightly armed rebels back toward the opposition stronghold ofBenghazi.


14/21

Rebel fighters fled Port Brega, site of a strategic refinery complex and oil terminal,under heavy bombardment and tried to hold back government forces rapidlyadvancing on Ajdabiya, about 95 miles south of Benghazi.

The fall of Port Brega is a serious blow to the rebel force, facing a government onslaughtthat has loosened the opposition's grip on eastern Libya.

Just eight days ago, rebel fighters routed pro-Kadafi forces in Port Brega and anotherstrategic oil city, Ras Lanuf, and spoke of taking the battle to Tripoli, the capital, far tothe west.

The steady advance of Kadafi's fighters behind airstrikes and rocket attacks putspressure on rebel leaders in Benghazi to stop or slow the government's assault up theMediterranean coastal highway before it reaches the opposition stronghold.

Panicked rebels in Ajdabiya blocked reporters from driving farther southwest towardPort Brega. Many said they lacked the firepower to slow the government's assault.

"Kadafi is on his way to Ajdabiya," said Masoud Bwisir, a carwash owner fighting forthe rebels, from the city's western gate. "How can we stop him? He has tanks, planes.He fires at us from boats in the sea. Our guns are weak against him."

Rockets slammed down late Sunday afternoon on the western outskirts of Ajdabiya,about 45 miles from Port Brega, as a cleric raised a bullhorn and called for warriors

among the boys and young men in the city.

"If you have a weapon and want to fight, please come," he said as rebels dug trenchesand positioned antiaircraft guns. "But you need your own weapon. We have run out."

State-run TV said Port Brega, about 120 miles south of Benghazi, had been "cleansed ofterrorist gangs of mercenaries." It added: "All citizens are requested to go back to workand to their normal lives."

The closed refinery at Port Brega normally produces 15% of Libya's gasoline. With othergasoline sources also cut off by fighting, the rebels face a growing fuel crisis.

The Port Brega complex still feeds a natural gas pipeline that provides fuel for electricplants in Tripoli and Benghazi, executives of Libya's biggest state-owned oil companysaid. They said Kadafi could cut the pipeline to Benghazi, Libya's second-largest city,and create electricity shortages.


15/21

From Port Brega, the coastal highway to Benghazi has no fixed gun emplacements tofight off a government advance. The only defense is inexperienced and undisciplinedrebel gunmen riding in cars and trucks mounted with guns.

Seizing Ajdabiya might allow government fighters to race northeast over a largely

undefended desert highway to the key rebel port of Tobruk, near the Egyptian border,where they would be in position to block the coastal highway between Tobruk toBenghazi.

In Benghazi, the head of the rebel military effort called the defeat a "tactical withdrawal"and said Kadafi's forces had overextended their supply lines.

Gen. Abdul Fatah Younis, a former interior minister who defected to the opposition,said rebel fighters would try to lure Kadafi's forces "into an area where we can even thefight." He declined to elaborate.

Younis said army defectors had taken over leadership of the opposition force, which hecalled our shabab, or "youth," though there has been little sign at the front ofexperienced professional soldiers among the rebel ranks.

In Tripoli, the Kadafi regime's Col. Milad Hussein, who directs ideological instructionfor Libyan troops, said government forces were preparing to seize Benghazi without"full-scale military action."

"Once you come to them they just stand there and give up their guns," Hussein said of

rebel fighters.Mustafa Gheriani, an opposition spokesman in Benghazi, said Kadafi does not haveenough loyal fighters to hold any eastern city or town for long. "He can bomb the heckout of these places, but he doesn't have to foot soldiers to hold them," he said.

Security was heightened Sunday at the downtown Benghazi courthouse that serves asopposition headquarters. Workers moved concrete barriers in place to block access to anarrow street leading to the courthouse entrance.

An announcer on the rebel-controlled Free Libya radio urged residents to remain calmand patient.

The battlefield defeats left rebels suspicious of new faces, and they warned of informersin their midst. Fingers slipped toward triggers and no one smiled at checkpoints.

Dozens of retreating pickup trucks heavy with rebels and antiaircraft guns careenedpast, heading away from Port Brega toward Benghazi. One haggard fighter leaned out a


16/21

truck and told rebels at the western gate, "Kadafi's men are 12 miles from here. We needweapons. We don't have the right weapons."

Kadafi's forces also pressed attacks against Misurata, east of Tripoli, the sole remainingopposition stronghold in western Libya, as heavy fighting continued. Salah Abdelaziz,

an architect who serves as spokesman for the Misurata opposition, reported heavybombardment and raging gun battles on the outskirts of the city, home to about 600,000.

About 50 people have been killed and at least 570 treated for injuries at a Misuratahospital, said a doctor there who asked that his name not be published.

"We have no milk for children and there is a major shortage of anesthetic drugs foroperating," he said in a telephone interview.-----------------------Somalia Needs U.S. Aid to Fight Rebels, Prime Minister Mohamed Says on CNN

(Bloomberg)By Angela Greiling KeaneMar 13, 2011 12:00 AM ET(Somalia) Somalia needs more equipment and other resources from the U.S., not moretroops, Prime Minister Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed said.

We would like to see more resources, more equipment to the TFG forces, Mohamedsaid, referring to Somalias transitional federal government in an interview scheduledfor broadcast today on CNNs Fareed Zakaria GPS program. We have enoughforces.

The United Nations Security Council on March 10 urged the international communityto fund troops, helicopters and logistical support for the African Union peacekeepingforce in Somalia, which has been fighting Islamic rebels.

The government led by Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed is fighting insurgents includingthe al-Shabaab movement, which the U.S. accuses of having links to the al-Qaedaterrorist network. Somalia has been without a functioning central administration since1991, when ruler Mohamed Siad Barre was ousted.

We are winning and, of course, we cannot do it alone, Mohamed told CNN in theinterview, taped March 11. We need international collaboration and cooperation,particularly the United States and the European countries, as well as Arab nations, hesaid.

Mohamed, on March 10, told the UN Security Council that al- Shabaab forces may teamwith pirates off the coast of Somalia to use fuel tankers as weapons like terrorists didwith commercial airliners on Sept. 11 in the U.S.


17/21

We are fighting a two-front war, which is piracy and extremism and terrorism,Mohamed said in the CNN interview.----------------------------Somali pirates cut ransoms to clear hijacked ships (Reuters)

By Mohamed Ahmed and Abdi sheikhMarch 13, 2011 5:19pm GMTMOGADISHU - Somali pirates said on Sunday they would lower some of their ransomdemands to get a faster turnover of ships they hijack in the Indian Ocean.

Armed pirate gangs, who have made millions of dollars capturing ships as far south asthe Seychelles and eastwards towards India, said they were holding too many vesselsand needed a quicker handover to generate more income.

"I believe there is no excuse for taking high ransoms. At least each of our groups holds

ships now," pirate Hussein told Reuters from Hobyo on the Somalian coast. He said thepirates were holding more than 30 ships at the moment.

"We have lowered the ransom only for the ships we have used to hijack other ships. Wesometimes release these ships free of charge for they generate more (money). But weshall not lower the ransom for the bulk ships we are sure can bring bulk money."

Using captured merchant vessels as launchpads for new hijackings, the pirates havegrown bolder despite a loosely coordinated global response, and insurance premiumsfor shipping lines have rocketed.

Pirates hold seized ships for an average of up to 150 days before freeing them forransoms, some as high as $9.5 million for the release of Samho Dream, a South Koreanoil supertanker. [ID:nLDE7210Y5]Abdullahi, another pirate, said any decrease in ransom would be calculated by theship's value, its cargo and the length of time it had been held.

"We have changed our previous strategies. We have altered our operations and ransomdeals with modern business deals," he said from the port town of Haradhere.

"We want to free ships within a short period of time instead of keeping them for a longtime and incurring more expenses in guarding them. We have to free them at a lowerransom so that we can hijack more ships."

Attacks have grown since 2007 when young Somalis in small skiffs with AK-47s androcket propelled grenades took to the water is to seek their fortunes.


18/21

But since late February, the pirates have had to share their spoils with the Al ShabaabIslamist rebels, who profess loyalty to al Qaeda. The insurgents -- who have beenwaging a four-year insurrection against the country's Western-backed government --struck a deal to get a 20 percent cut of ransoms in Haradhere.

Pirates said the rebels had no say in their plan.

"Al Shabaab has nothing to do with our plan to lower ransoms. We agreed on a fixed 20percent cut. Low or high ransom, the agreement is fixed," said Abdullahi.--------------------------African Union backs Ouattara as president in Ivory Coast (Christian Science Monitor)By Scott BaldaufMarch 11, 2011Johannesburg, South Africa - Three months after Ivory Coasts political crisis began, theAfrican Union has called on incumbent President Laurent Gbagbo to step down, paving

the way for opposition leader Alassane Ouattara to finally take on the powers ofpresident.

The AUs decision followed a fact-finding mission by five African heads of state,including South Africas President Jacob Zuma, and months of violence that killed atleast 365 people and displaced tens of thousands of others in the capital Abidjan andelsewhere. Mr. Ouattara, who attended the AU meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, thisweek, is expected to return to Abidjan soon.

Now, all eyes turn to Mr. Gbagbo, who chose not to attend the AU meeting and rejects

the AUs compromise solution, which envisages Mr. Ouattara as president of a power-sharing government that includes members of Gbagbos party but not Gbagbo himself.Gbagbo has threatened not to let Ouattara back into the country and has issued anorder to prevent continued air supply flights for the United Nations peacekeepingmission in Abidjan.

The AUs decision is a relief to diplomats based in Africa because several AU membersseemed to be deeply divided over whether to support Gbagbo or Ouattara. The AfricanUnion initially joined the UN, the European Union, and several independent electionobserver missions in declaring Ouattara the outright winner of the Nov. 28, 2010elections, but members of the fact-finding mission, notably President Zuma, cast doubton that election victory and said the results were inconclusive, calling instead for apower-sharing deal. Some political analysts say the delay in making a decision mayhave given Gbagbo time to arm himself and prolong the conflict.

What the AU has done through prevarication, with their flip flopping, is to giveGbagbo time to dig in his heels and work toward a military resistance to this decision


19/21

by the AU, says Aubrey Matshiqi, a senior analyst at the Center for Policy Studies inJohannesburg. This will cost lives on the ground.

In its decision, made at AU headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the AU acceptedthe recommended solution crafted by the panel of five African presidents, which

included:

- Requesting that Gbagbo withdraw and Ivory Coasts Constitutional Councilswear in Ouattara

- Recommending that Ouattara form a national unity and reconciliationgovernment with other parties, including Gbagbos

- Calling for the establishment of a Council of the Republic to promote nationalreconciliation

- Calling for media to stop issuing ethnic or political hate messages- A lifting of the blockade of the Gulf Hotel, where Ouattara has resided under

UN protection since November- Adoption of an amnesty law for all post-elections violence, exempting the

president, prime minister, and senior military officers from prosecution

The AUs decision seemed to have little effect on the security situation in Ivory Coastitself. On Friday there were reports of continued heavy arms fire between supporters ofOuattara and the armed forces loyal to Gbagbo. In Abidjan, a Gbagbo spokesmanoutright rejected a power-sharing deal with Ouattara.

"What is on offer is power sharing and the very principle of it is unacceptable," said the

spokesman, Ahoua Don Mello, in Abidjan.

Missing from the AUs decision is a plan for implementation in the likely event thatGbagbo refuses to step down. The AU plan calls for reinforcing the UN peacekeepingforce in Abidjan with troops from the AU and the Economic Community of WestAfrican States (primarily troops from Nigeria). But these additional forces have notbeen given a strong mandate to use military force beyond mere protection of civiliansand keeping the peace, and the use of force to remove Gbagbo does not seem to havebeen discussed.

Also missing from the AU decision is an explanation of the evidence that led the AU toaccept Ouattaras victory, says Mr. Matshiqi.

I was hoping the panel of five African presidents [would] have included the evidencefrom the panel of experts, explaining why they think either Ouattara or Gbagbo is thewinner, says Matshiqi. If you explain the evidence, then it would make it easy showthat Gbagbo has no leg to stand on. When you have such a climate of uncertainty, youneed transparency and accountability. The AU needs to explain to the continent their


20/21

initial decision to support Ouattara, their reasons for departing from that decision, andthen why they reverted to their original decision.----------------------Ivory Coast Rebels Take Over Another Town (VOA)By Unattributed Author

March 13, 2011Rebels allied with Ivory Coast's internationally recognized president, AlassaneOuattara, have taken control of another western town from troops loyal to incumbentPresident Laurent Gbagbo.

Spokesmen from both sides say New Forces fighters seized control of the town of Dokefrom troops backing Mr. Gbagbo, who refuses to give up power after losingNovember's presidential election.

The rebels say they now control four towns in western Ivory Coast.

Mr. Ouattara returned to Ivory Coast late Saturday from an African Union peaceconference in Ethiopia, ignoring Gbagbo's vow that he would not be let back into thecountry if he left.

The AU has joined the United Nations and most other countries in recognizing Mr.Ouattara as the winner of November's election. Mr. Gbagbo insists he won.

A top Gbagbo advisor called the AU's recognition of an Ouattara presidencyunacceptable.

The U.N. says post-election violence in Ivory Coast has killed at least 365 people.-------------------------South Sudan Accuses North of Ouster Plot, Genocide Plan (VOA News)By Unattributed AuthorMarch 13, 2011South Sudan has suspended pre-partition talks with the north, accusing Khartoum ofplanning to topple the south's government and kill its people.

Pagan Amum, a senior official with the south's ruling party, said Saturday that thenorth is training and arming militias to destabilize south Sudan and oust the region'sleaders before secession in July.

Amum spoke again Sunday, saying the north's ruling party is arming Arab tribes sothey can, in his words, carry out genocide like they have done in Darfur.


21/21

There was no immediate reaction from the north's ruling National Congress party toAmum's latest remarks. On Saturday, NCP officials dismissed Amum's accusations asbaseless.

South Sudan has experienced a wave of deadly clashes with rebel groups in recent

months. The south's army says at least 23 rebels were killed Saturday after theyattacked Malakal, the capital of the south's oil-rich Upper Nile state.

Southerners overwhelmingly voted to declare independence from the north in aJanuary referendum.

The vote was promised in a 2005 peace deal that ended Sudan's 21-year north-southcivil war.

Fighting continues in Sudan's western Darfur region, where rebels took up arms against

the government in 2003. The International Criminal Court has indicted President Omaral-Bashir on charges of war crimes and genocide in that region.

South Sudan is due to split away from the north on July 9. However, the sides have yetto settle several key issues, including the fate of the oil-producing Abyei region, whichsits along the north-south border.

AFRICOM Related News Clips 14 March 2011

Documents

Transcript of AFRICOM Related News Clips 14 March 2011