[Congressional Record Volume 157, Number 51 (Friday, April 8, 2011)]
[Senate]
[Pages S2305-S2308]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                                 LIBYA

  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, I am aware that most of my colleagues are 
taking the floor today to speak about the potential shutdown of the 
government, and very appropriately so. I am strongly opposed to a 
government shutdown, as we all are. I especially want to note its 
adverse effects on our men and women in uniform.
  Of course, I have joined so many of my colleagues in cosponsoring the 
Ensuring Pay for Our Military Act of 2011. The last thing our men and 
women and their families need to worry about is how to make ends meet 
while they are taking up arms to defend the Nation's interests.
  I rise to talk about the deteriorating situation in Libya which could 
have more profound effects than the crisis we are in. It is a very 
serious, very deteriorating situation and one which is fraught with 
severe implications for America's national security interests.
  I remain a strong supporter of the President's decision to take 
military action in Libya. It averted what was an imminent slaughter in 
Benghazi and has given us a chance to achieve the goal of U.S. policy 
as stated correctly by the President: to force Qadhafi to leave power. 
I am also grateful we have capable friends, our Arab partners, and NATO 
allies, who are making critical contributions. But that is not a 
substitute for U.S. leadership. Right now that is the main missing 
ingredient in the coalition's efforts in Libya--the willingness of the 
administration to take decisive actions, together with our partners, so 
that we can accomplish our goal as quickly as possible rather than look 
to our allies to do it all themselves, which I fear the evidence is 
mounting they cannot do.
  The administration has chosen to stop flying strike missions against 
Qadhafi's forces, even though they continue to threaten Libyan 
civilians and even though our NATO allies cannot match our unique 
capabilities in this regard. The administration correctly declared that 
forcing Qadhafi from power is a goal of U.S. policy, but our military 
mission is not working toward that goal by actively seeking to degrade 
Qadhafi's forces, thereby increasing the pressure on him to leave 
power.
  At a time when Qadhafi's forces are adapting to NATO's tactics and 
capabilities and concealing themselves in populated civilian areas, the 
administration has grounded our most effective aircraft, the A-10 and 
the AC-130, which are the only planes--the only planes--that are 
capable of conducting the kinds of precise air-to-ground operations now 
required to protect civilians under the current circumstances. Not 
surprisingly, Qadhafi's forces are now regaining the momentum on the 
ground.

  We cannot succeed with half-measures. Right now, our actions are not 
adding up to a strategy that appears capable of achieving our goals. To 
the contrary, we seem to be failing to prevent the situation on the 
ground in Libya from sliding into a stalemate.
  Just yesterday, GEN Carter Hamm, the commander of U.S. Africa 
Command, who led Operation Odyssey Dawn in Libya, told the Armed 
Services Committee that a stalemate in Libya, where Qadhafi remains in 
power to pose an even greater threat to the world and to the Libyan 
people, is not in America's interest or in anyone's interest. But in 
the same hearing yesterday, General Hamm also conceded that the 
situation on the ground in Libya is ``more likely'' of becoming a 
stalemate now then when this intervention began. I am afraid I agree 
with the general.
  I would like to highlight some of the news my colleagues may have 
missed.
  Yesterday, there was an airstrike that, unfortunately--the Washington 
Post: ``NATO's credibility takes a hit in Libya.''

       Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar Gaddafi went back on 
     the offensive . . . as questions continued to mount about the 
     credibility and effectiveness of NATO's no-fly zone and 
     campaign of airstrikes.
       A senior U.S. general described the situation in Libya as a 
     stalemate, while Turkey said it was talking to both sides 
     working on a ``road map'' for a cease-fire. In the meantime, 
     Gaddafi is seeking what military advantage he can get and 
     probing for gaps in NATO's resolve. . . .
       The day also ignited new confusion and outrage among rebels 
     in Ajdabiya after warplanes strafed rebel forces and killed 
     at least five people, including two doctors. Rebels first 
     accused NATO of targeting them. . . . By Thursday night, it 
     was still unclear who attacked. . . .
       Abdul Fattah Younis, the rebel's commander, told reporters 
     that if NATO had attacked their tanks, it was a mistake, and 
     if Gaddafi's airplanes had been allowed to strike them, it 
     was an ``even bigger mistake.''

  Quoting the New York Times:

       As for the current air war, NATO is especially sensitive to 
     the criticism that came most scathingly from the leader of 
     the Libyan opposition forces, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes. He 
     said in Benghazi late Tuesday that ``NATO blesses us every 
     now and then with a bombardment here and there, and is 
     letting the people of Misurata die every day.''

  So we relieved a humanitarian--let's get this straight, my friends--
we relieved a humanitarian disaster in Benghazi, and now, because of 
either ineptitude or lack of resolve or lack of capability or all of 
the above, we are now watching a massacre--certainly human suffering of 
enormous proportions in Misurata.
  There is another article from the Guardian: ``NATO lacking strike 
aircraft for Libya campaign.''
  There is a New York Times editorial today. Interestingly, the New 
York Times says:

       There is a much better option: the American A-10 and AC-130 
     aircraft used earlier in the Libya fighting and still on 
     standby status. President Obama should authorize these planes 
     to fly again under NATO command. Unlike the highflying 
     supersonic French and British jets now carrying the main 
     burden of the air war, these American planes can fly slow 
     enough and low enough to let them see and target Colonel 
     Qaddafi's weapons without unduly endangering nearby 
     populations.

  Facts are stubborn things. The fact is that now the situation is 
deteriorating. The suffering goes on, and America and our allies appear 
to be showing that we are incapable or unwilling to address a third-
rate military power, ruled by a man who has the blood of 190 Americans 
on his hands, who has been involved in terrorist activities throughout 
the world, who went outside of Benghazi and said: We will go house to 
house and kill every one of you. And the situation is deteriorating 
into stalemate.
  So what do we need to do?
  First, we need to get U.S. Armed Forces, especially our A-10s and AC-
130s, back in the business of flying strike missions against Qadhafi's

[[Page S2306]]

forces--not just as part of our effort to protect civilians but to work 
toward the goal of our actual policy, which is to impose enough 
pressure on the regime to compel Qadhafi and his family to leave power.
  Second, the United States should work with our friends and allies to 
help the opposition government in Benghazi, the Transitional National 
Council, to gain access to some of the tens of billions of dollars 
worth of funds that have been frozen from the Qadhafi regime.
  Third, we need to help the opposition to Qadhafi communicate more 
effectively, while shutting down Qadhafi's ability to broadcast his 
propaganda. Qadhafi has cut off land lines, mobile networks, and the 
Internet. While top opposition leaders have satellite phones, we have 
both humanitarian and strategic interests in restoring the ability of 
people in liberated parts of Libya to communicate with each other and 
the rest of the world. We should take steps to get Qadhafi's satellite, 
television, and radio broadcasts off the air. U.S. diplomacy is 
urgently needed to get those countries that have satellite providers 
broadcasting Qadhafi's propaganda to drop those communications 
immediately.
  Fourth, the United States should follow France, Qatar, and Italy in 
recognizing the opposition government, the Transitional National 
Council, as the sole legitimate government of Libya.
  I hear again and again: We don't know who these people are. Well, I 
will tell you who they are. They are people who rose up against an 
oppressive and brutal dictator and wanted to assert their rights for 
freedom and democracy. That is who they are.
  Any allegation that they are dominated by al-Qaida is patently false. 
We did not know who was going to come after Hitler, but we wanted him 
gone. So this continuous stream that somehow this is al-Qaida--it is 
not al-Qaida; it is people who want freedom and democracy. They rose up 
peacefully, as the Tunisians did and the Egyptians did and as others 
across the Middle East and north Africa are now doing for greater 
political freedom, economic opportunity, and justice. That is why this 
regional awakening, which some are calling the Arab spring, rather than 
helping al-Qaida, is, in fact, the greatest repudiation of al-Qaida the 
world has ever seen.
  Fifth, we need to facilitate the provision of weapons to the Libyan 
opposition, as well as command and control technology, training, 
battlefield intelligence, and other capabilities that can strengthen 
their ability to increase the pressure on Qadhafi to leave power.
  I want to reiterate that I do not support nor do I believe is 
necessary American ground troops under any circumstances. We should be 
able to, with a combination of the robust implementation of these five 
measures, drive Qadhafi from power and give the Libyan people their 
God-given rights.
  I want to say again that I see on cable time after time that we do 
not know who these people are and they may be al-Qaida. I will tell you 
who they are. They are people who do not want to live under oppressive, 
repressive brutal regimes. And the more of a stalemate, the more likely 
al-Qaida forces will infiltrate and gain power. The quicker Qadhafi 
leaves power, the more likely it is we will see a dramatic transition.
  We cannot say--we cannot say--we intervened in Libya to prevent a 
slaughter in Benghazi only to see one in Misurata or some other city. 
If we stay our present course, that is what will likely happen. We need 
decisive actions, not half-measures. We need to be leading. America 
must lead. NATO is America. We need to be leading in a strong and 
sustained way, not sitting on the side lines or playing a supporting 
role. We have the right goal in Libya. The President was right to 
intervene in the first place, but now we need to take the necessary 
steps to finish the job.
  Mr. President, I ask unanimous consent that the articles I referred 
to be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the material was ordered to be printed in 
the Record, as follows:

                [From the Washington Post, Apr. 8, 2011]

                NATO's Credibility Takes a Hit in Libya

                   (By Leila Fadel and Simon Denyer)

       Ajdabiya, Libya.--Forces loyal to Libyan leader Moammar 
     Gaddafi went back on the offensive Thursday, as questions 
     continued to mount about the credibility and effectiveness of 
     NATO's no-fly zone and campaign of airstrikes.
       A senior U.S. general described the situation in Libya as a 
     stalemate, while Turkey said it was talking to both sides and 
     working on a ``road map'' for a cease-fire. In the meantime, 
     Gaddafi is seeking what military advantage he can get and 
     probing for gaps in NATO's resolve.
       At the organization's headquarters in Brussels, NATO 
     ambassadors held an unscheduled meeting Thursday to follow up 
     on complaints from French Foreign Minister Alain Juppe that 
     the Libya campaign risks getting bogged down unless the pace 
     and efficiency of air support for rebel forces picks up.
       The inability of either side to score a decisive victory 
     has left the Obama administration and NATO in a quandary, 
     facing decisions about whether to continue the mission of 
     trying to protect civilians or to increase assistance to the 
     opposition, aid that is currently limited to strikes from air 
     and sea.
       Attacks by Gaddafi's forces began with strikes on desert 
     oil installations that serve as the rebels' economic 
     lifeline, and they intensified Thursday with the fresh 
     artillery bombardment of rebel positions in the eastern port 
     of Ajdabiya, which sent many fighters fleeing.
       The day also ignited new confusion and outrage among rebels 
     in Ajdabiya after warplanes strafed rebel forces and killed 
     at least five people, including two doctors. Rebels first 
     accused NATO of targeting them but later said the attack 
     probably came from Gaddafi's forces. By Thursday night, it 
     was still unclear who attacked the rebels from the sky.
       Abdul Fattah Younis, the rebels' commander, told reporters 
     that if NATO had attacked their tanks, it was a mistake, and 
     if Gaddafi's airplanes had been allowed to strike them, it 
     was an ``even bigger mistake.''
       Either way, NATO's credibility among rebel forces, already 
     battered since the United States took a back-seat role, 
     appears to have sustained another blow. Rebels are 
     questioning NATO's resolve to help them.
       The government attacks on oil installations in the remote 
     southern desert appeared intended to take advantage of the 
     limits of NATO's involvement. Even as the rebels made their 
     first oil shipment, a series of attacks on oil installations 
     shut down production at the country's main oil field of 
     Sarir. An oil company official in rebel-held territory joined 
     the calls Thursday for better protection from NATO.
       Rebel fighters in Ajdabiya have grown accustomed to the 
     Western alliance controlling the skies, so they were taken 
     off guard Thursday when low-flying planes fired upon several 
     tanks and a passenger bus loaded with fighters. Younis, the 
     rebel commander, denounced what he called ``a vicious 
     attack'' and said that the precision of the strikes led him 
     to believe that NATO was responsible.
       Outraged rebel fighters called the attack a repeat of an 
     incident last Friday in which NATO bombs mistakenly killed 13 
     rebels and injured seven others. That incident was triggered 
     when the rebels fired their weapons into the air in 
     celebration--an act that NATO forces mistook for hostile 
     fire.
       This time, Younis said, the rebel army had informed NATO of 
     its plan to move tanks and other forces into new positions 
     outside Ajdabiya. The tanks and bus were parked, other 
     fighters said, and were marked with the green, black and red 
     rebel flag.
       Rebel forces, meanwhile, came under fire from government 
     loyalists at Ajdabiya's western gate and rapidly retreated. 
     Many fighters, and some of the few families who had not yet 
     fled the city after weeks of fighting, drove north and east 
     toward Benghazi, the rebel capital, their pickup trucks and 
     cars filled with everything from mattresses to suitcases to 
     automatic weapons.
       The main hospital in Ajdabiya was evacuated, with its 
     patients and staff also headed to Benghazi. But Gaddafi's 
     forces appeared not to have entered the city proper, and some 
     rebel fighters remained.
       In Washington, Gen. Carter F. Ham, who commanded the 
     coalition operation until it was taken over by NATO last 
     week, responded affirmatively when asked during congressional 
     testimony Thursday whether the conflict had reached a 
     stalemate. He said that ``debate is occurring within the U.S. 
     government'' about how best to respond.
       In response to a question from Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), 
     Ham said he agreed that a stalemate seemed ``more likely'' 
     than it had been when the United States and its allies began 
     their military strikes last month.
       The NATO meeting in Brussels was convened in response to 
     complaints from France, which, along with Britain, has 
     carried out the largest number of sorties over Libya since 
     U.S. forces turned over operational command March 31.
       NATO officials said bad weather had reduced visibility and 
     not made it easy to supply the sustained, close air support 
     demanded by rebel commanders. They also accused Gaddafi's 
     forces of dispersing troops, tanks and artillery among 
     civilian populations in several cities.
       The alliance said it was investigating the initial rebel 
     version of what happened near Ajdabiya, but it did not reveal 
     whether coalition warplanes were in the area at the time.
       The alliance said that fighting there had been ``fierce'' 
     for several days and that the battlefield remains confused 
     and disorganized.

[[Page S2307]]

       ``The situation is unclear and fluid, with mechanized 
     weapons traveling in all directions,'' said a statement from 
     NATO facilities in Naples.
       With a quick military solution looking less likely by the 
     day, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan said his 
     country was holding talks with both sides in Libya and 
     working on a ``road map'' to achieve a cease-fire.
       In any prolonged stalemate, the rebels' ability to shore up 
     their region's tattered economy with oil revenue will be 
     critical. Rebels have about 2 million barrels of crude oil in 
     Tobruk that can be exported, but production at the Sarir and 
     Misla fields has halted after a series of attacks.
       Two employees of Arabian Gulf Oil Co. are still missing 
     after Gaddafi forces attacked the Misla field with rockets, 
     setting fire to at least one oil tank, a company spokesman, 
     Abdeljalil Mayuf, told the Reuters news agency on Thursday.
       Gaddafi's government has routinely denied attacking oil 
     facilities and has blamed rebels or NATO for the attacks.
       ``If we get Gaddafi's forces out of these areas, we can try 
     to reopen Sarir field, but it's not safe now,'' Mayuf said, 
     appealing for air support from NATO.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 7, 2011]

             Changing Libyan Tactics Pose Problems for NATO

                          (By Steven Erlanger)

       Paris.--Angry charges by Libyan rebels that NATO has failed 
     to come to their aid point up a question that has haunted the 
     Western air campaign from the start: how to avoid a stalemate 
     and defeat the Libyan leader without putting foreign troops 
     on the ground.
       NATO officials and the French foreign minister, Alain 
     Juppe, rejected the opposition criticism on Wednesday, saying 
     that bad weather and evolving tactics by forces loyal to Col. 
     Muammar el-Qaddafi were limiting the air war, which is 
     supposed to be protecting Libyan civilians and driving the 
     colonel's troops to retreat to their barracks. In recent 
     days, Qaddafi forces have stepped up their shelling of 
     Misurata, in the west, and pushed rebels back from some 
     eastern oil towns.
       The rebels, of course, are a largely untrained, 
     disorganized fighting force. But the nature of the battle has 
     also changed since a United Nations resolution authorized 
     ``all necessary measures'' to protect civilians.
       In the early stages of the air campaign, allied warplanes 
     blistered Qaddafi tanks, artillery and transport trucks in 
     the desert outside the rebel capital, Benghazi. But American 
     intelligence reports from Libya say that the Qaddafi forces 
     are now hiding their troops and weaponry among urban 
     populations and traveling in pickup trucks and S.U.V.'s 
     rather than military vehicles, making them extremely 
     difficult targets.
       ``The military capabilities available to Qaddafi remain 
     quite substantial,'' said a senior Pentagon official who 
     watches Libya. ``What this shows is that you cannot guarantee 
     tipping the balance of ground operations only with bombs and 
     missiles from the air.''
       NATO officials, who just took over responsibility for the 
     air campaign from the United States, deny that their 
     bureaucracy is somehow limiting the campaign. ``No country is 
     vetoing this target or that one; it's not like Kosovo,'' 
     where in 1999 some countries objected to certain bombing 
     targets, said a senior NATO official, asking anonymity in 
     accordance with diplomatic practice.
       ``The military command is doing what it wants to do,'' he 
     said.
       NATO officials said on Wednesday that NATO was flying more 
     missions every day, and that defending Misurata was a 
     priority. Carmen Romero, a NATO spokeswoman, said that the 
     alliance flew 137 missions on Monday and 186 on Tuesday, and 
     planned 198 on Wednesday. ``We have a clear mandate, and we 
     will do everything to protect the citizens of Misurata.''
       A rebel spokesman in Misurata said Wednesday that NATO had 
     delivered two airstrikes that pushed the Qaddafi forces away 
     from the port, opening it for vital supply ships. ``We have 
     renewed momentum, and our friends are helping us big time,'' 
     said Mohamed, a rebel spokesman whose name was withheld for 
     the protection of his family.
       ``NATO is not the problem,'' the senior NATO official said. 
     ``The Qaddafi forces have learned and have adapted. They're 
     using human shields, so it's difficult to attack them from 
     the air.'' While many Western officials have accused the 
     Qaddafi forces of using human shields, they have yet to 
     produce explicit evidence. But they generally mean that the 
     troops take shelter, with their armor, in civilian areas.
       The harder question is how NATO will respond to the changed 
     tactics of the Qaddafi forces, which now seem to have 
     achieved a stalemate against the combination of Western air 
     power and the ragtag opposition army.
       First, there is a question of whether without the 
     participation of the United States, the rest of the 
     coalition--France, Britain, Italy, Spain, Norway, Qatar and a 
     few others--have the right mix of weapons or enough of them. 
     In particular, the United States uses a jet called the A-10, 
     or Warthog--which flies lower and slower than other airplanes 
     but has cannon that can destroy armored vehicles--as well as 
     the AC-130, both of which are effective in more built-up 
     areas. The Europeans have nothing similar.
       The United States has had C.I.A. agents on the ground with 
     the rebels in eastern Libya for some time, and there are 
     unconfirmed reports that they may be helping to train the 
     rebel army's raw recruits. Even so, forming a real army that 
     can oust Colonel Qaddafi may take many months, and the 
     coalition is unlikely to be that patient.
       That is one reason that allied governments, including the 
     United States and Britain, are urging defections from the 
     Qaddafi circle and hoping that he will be removed from 
     inside. No official, of course, is willing to talk about any 
     covert mission to remove the colonel, except to say that 
     ``regime change'' is not authorized by the United Nations.
       And that is why Britain, Turkey and the United States are 
     all exploring the possibilities of a negotiated solution to 
     the conflict, provided Colonel Qaddafi and his sons 
     relinquish power.
       Francois Heisbourg, a military policy expert at the 
     Foundation for Strategic Research in Paris, said, ``Given 
     where we are, any deal that removes Colonel Qaddafi from the 
     scene is a deal we should take.''
       As for the current air war, NATO is especially sensitive to 
     the criticism that came most scathingly from the leader of 
     the Libyan opposition forces, Gen. Abdul Fattah Younes. He 
     said in Benghazi late Tuesday that ``NATO blesses us every 
     now and then with a bombardment here and there, and is 
     letting the people of Misurata die every day.''
       Mr. Juppe, whose country has been the most aggressive in 
     defense of the Libyan opposition, said on Wednesday that the 
     situation in Misurata was difficult, but it was complicated 
     by the need to protect civilian lives.
       ``Misurata is in a situation that cannot carry on,'' Mr. 
     Juppe told France Info radio. ``But I want to make clear that 
     we categorically asked that there is no collateral damage on 
     the civilian population, so it makes the military 
     interventions more difficult, because Qaddafi's troops 
     understood it very well and are getting closer to the 
     civilian population.''
       He said he would bring up the difficulties of Misurata to 
     the NATO secretary general, Anders Fogh Rasmussen.
       Rebel leaders have rejected the idea that the Qaddafi 
     forces in Misurata cannot be attacked from the air, saying 
     that the neighborhoods where the troops are concentrated were 
     long ago abandoned by civilians.
       Another option is to increase the pressure on Colonel 
     Qaddafi and his sons, although openly changing the objective 
     in Libya from protecting civilians to ousting the Qaddafi 
     family from power would probably shatter the international 
     coalition that is enforcing the United Nations resolution, 
     said Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and 
     International Studies in Washington.
       ``Nevertheless,'' he added, ``the U.S. and its allies need 
     to make hard--if somewhat covert--choices, and make them 
     quickly,'' he said in an e-mailed commentary. ``The last 
     thing anyone needs at a time when there is near-turmoil from 
     Pakistan to Morocco is a long-lasting open wound of political 
     division and extended conflict in Libya as the worst-of-the-
     worst authoritarian leaders elsewhere in the region struggle 
     to survive.''
       NATO needs to take the rebels' side more forcefully, he 
     said, despite the neutrality of the United Nations 
     resolution. That could take several forms, he said, among 
     them ``killing Qaddafi forces the moment they move or 
     concentrate, rather than waiting for them to attack; striking 
     Qaddafi's military and security facilities; and finding 
     excuses to strike his compound.''
       For Libya, Mr. Cordesman wrote, ``a long political and 
     economic crisis and an extended low-level conflict that 
     devastates populated areas'' would represent a ``net 
     humanitarian cost'' that would be ``higher than fully backing 
     the rebels, with air power and covert arms and training.''
                                  ____


                   [From the Guardian, Apr. 5, 2011]

            Nato Lacking Strike Aircraft for Libya Campaign

               (By Ian Traynor and Richard Norton-Taylor)

       Nato is running short of attack aircraft for its bombing 
     campaign against Muammar Gaddafi only days after taking 
     command of the Libyan mission from a coalition led by the US, 
     France and Britain.
       David Cameron has pledged four more British Tornado jets on 
     top of eight already being used for the air strikes. But 
     pressure is growing for other European countries, especially 
     France, to offer more after the Americans withdrew their 
     attack aircraft from the campaign on Monday.
       ``We will need more strike capability,'' a Nato official 
     said.
       Since the French launched the first raids on Libya 16 days 
     ago, the coalition and Nato have destroyed around 30% of 
     Gaddafi's military capacity, Lieutenant General Charles 
     Bouchard, the Canadian officer leading the air campaign, told 
     Nato ambassadors.
       But attempts to ``degrade'' the Libyan leader's firepower 
     further were being complicated by a shift in tactics by 
     Gaddafi, said Brigadier General Marc van Uhm, a senior Nato 
     military planner.
       ``They are using light vehicles and trucks to transport,'' 
     while hiding tanks and heavy weapons, he said.
       ``We try to identify where those heavy assets are, because 
     we have seen they have

[[Page S2308]]

     chosen to hide themselves into urban areas to prevent being 
     targeted, even using human shields.''
       Nato officials insisted the pace of the air operations was 
     being maintained. But it has emerged that the US and the 
     French, who have been the two biggest military players until 
     now, are retaining national control over substantial military 
     forces in the Mediterranean and refusing to submit them to 
     Nato authority.
       The French have the Charles de Gaulle aircraft carrier, two 
     escorting frigates and 16 fighter aircraft, none of which are 
     under the Nato command and control which was announced last 
     Thursday.
       Until last week, President Nicolas Sarkozy was the loudest 
     opponent of handing over the operations to Nato control. 
     Nonetheless, the French are not only taking part in the Nato 
     campaign, but are the biggest non-US contributors, with 33 
     aircraft, double Britain's 17. Not all of these are strike 
     aircraft.
       Until Monday, the Americans had performed most of the 
     attacks on ground targets, with the French executing around a 
     quarter and the British around a 10th. Given the US retreat, 
     Nato is seeking to fill the gap, but only the British have 
     pledged more.
       ``We're very happy that one country decided to bring in 
     more assets,'' said Van Uhm.
       When Nato took over from the coalition it was stressed that 
     it had assumed ``sole command and control'' of all air 
     operations.
       However, countries are dipping in and out of Nato command, 
     withdrawing ``air assets'' for national operations before 
     returning them to alliance control.
       ``It's pretty clear that Nato is in command. Nato is in the 
     lead,'' said Van Uhm. ``There are assets under national 
     control in the area. But General Bouchard is commanding what 
     Nato does . . . You could say nothing is happening without 
     Nato knowing.''
       The general stressed that no air strikes on ground targets 
     in Libya had taken place outside Nato's command.
       Six countries are believed to be engaged in the bombing 
     campaign--France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and 
     Norway--with many others involved in policing an arms embargo 
     and enforcing a no-fly zone.
       Gaddafi's air force had been grounded, Van Uhm said.
       In London, the Ministry of Defence said RAF aircraft had 
     struck targets in Libya on each of the past three days.
       Tornado GR4 ground attack planes, flying from the Italian 
     airbase of Gioia del Colle, hit a battle tank and two 
     surface-to-air missile launchers near Sirte on Monday when 
     they launched three anti-armour Brimstone missiles. The 
     previous day, they dropped Paveway IV bombs and fired 
     Brimstone missiles to target a group of 10 armoured vehicles 
     south of Sirte.
       On Saturday, they dropped Paveway IV bombs on two tanks in 
     Sirte and also hit ``several small ground attack aircraft'' 
     on an airfield near Misrata, the MoD said.
       Two of the Eurofighter/Typhoons based in Italy have 
     returned to the UK. The Typhoons are not equipped to conduct 
     ground attack operations.
                                  ____


                [From the New York Times, Apr. 8, 2011]

                        Keeping Ahead of Qaddafi

       Wars are messy business, and the international effort to 
     keep Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi's forces from slaughtering 
     Libyan rebels and civilians is proving no exception. In 
     recent days, the colonel has thwarted NATO airstrikes by 
     regrouping his forces into densely populated areas. That has 
     left NATO with a seemingly impossible choice: leave some of 
     the regime's most deadly weapons unmolested, or target them 
     and risk possibly heavy civilian casualties.
       There is a much better option: the American A-10 and AC-130 
     aircraft used earlier in the Libya fighting and still on 
     standby status. President Obama should authorize these planes 
     to fly again under NATO command. Unlike the highflying 
     supersonic French and British jets now carrying the main 
     burden of the air war, these American planes can fly slow 
     enough and low enough to let them see and target Colonel 
     Qaddafi's weapons without unduly endangering nearby 
     populations.
       Mr. Obama was right to insist that other participating 
     nations should step up and that the operation be quickly 
     transferred to non-American NATO command. United States 
     forces are already overstretched--and bearing much of the 
     burden in Iraq and Afghanistan--and Libya's uprising is 
     unfolding on Europe's doorstep.
       European commanders are fully capable of running the show, 
     and European jet fighters can certainly destroy military 
     targets on desert roads and sparsely populated areas. But no 
     other country has aircraft comparable to America's A-10, 
     which is known as the Warthog, designed to attack tanks and 
     other armored vehicles, or to the AC-130 ground-attack 
     gunship, which is ideally suited for carefully sorting out 
     targets in populated areas.
       In a war where rebel ground forces are struggling to train 
     and organize themselves, and foreign ground forces are out of 
     the question, these specialized American planes provide a 
     unique and needed asset. Mr. Obama should make them available 
     to NATO commanders now.

  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from North Carolina.

                          ____________________