Talk:2011 military intervention in Libya/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

lead paragraph

As it is now the lead paragraph omits every mention of why the UN resolution was taken and on why the intervention happens. Also to call it "a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US" is factually wrong, as the coalition was much broader from the start (look at the nations represented at the Paris summit) than the 5 nations, that were the ones capable to launch the first strikes. The lead paragraph needs to mention for what reason the intervention is underway, a reader wants to know! noclador (talk) 19:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

see above - this change was discussed. Motivations are not central to the article - it describes the end result. Ronnotel (talk) 19:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Participating in the Paris summit, doesn't suddenly make you a participant in the war. Belgium for example participated in the summit, but didn't start taking military action until a few days later. But by all means, if you have a good source on nations participating in the initial assault the first days, provide it and we can add the country to the opening statement of the lead.--Sloane (talk) 20:25, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Another thing regarding the lead, I think we best move the "On 22 March, the French aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle arrived off the coast to provide military planners with a rapid-response air combat capability" further down the article. It's not really lead material.--Sloane (talk) 20:34, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Something else, the original rewrite of the lead had "in support of an armed uprising" in it, that in part addresses the cause and motivation of the war. We can add that again. --Sloane (talk) 20:42, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

you have to distinguish - Belgium did not take part at the start, because it took them some days to get ready for the mission. But it pledged its units at the summit! To say it was not part is factually wrong! As you say - initial assault was just 5 nations, but only because time was of essence and the other nations had to get their units in position first! The coalition included from the start Qatar, but they needed some days to get their plans to the theater of operations. About the de Gaulle - agreed take it out. But do not say it was a 5 nation coalition!! this is an error. noclador (talk) 23:43, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Noclador, I see no support for the version of the lead sentence you have been edit warring over. Unless you can show how your version does not introduce POV and has consensus support I would you to revert it. Ronnotel (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

how is citing the UN resolution verbatim POV???

the UN resolution 1973? [1]

• "4. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, and acting in cooperation with the Secretary-General, to take all necessary measures, notwithstanding paragraph 9 of resolution 1970 (2011), to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya, including Benghazi, while excluding a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory, and requests the Member States concerned to inform the Secretary-General immediately of the measures they take pursuant to the authorization conferred by this paragraph which shall be immediately reported to the Security Council;'
• "8. Authorizes Member States that have notified the Secretary-General and the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, acting nationally or through regional organizations or arrangements, to take all necessary measures to enforce compliance with the ban on flights imposed by paragraph 6 above, as necessary, and requests the States concerned in cooperation with the League of Arab States to coordinate closely with the Secretary General on the measures they are taking to implement this ban, including by establishing an appropriate mechanism for implementing the provisions of paragraphs 6 and 7 above,"

nobody in the coalition and the UN has said the aim is "to support the 2011 Libyan uprising" as you inserted [2] - actually everyone is stressing that the coalition is not actively supporting the rebels! so - your version is plain wrong.

my version is 100% sourced and based upon the facts - it is 1:1 the UN text:

• "to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack" my version
• "to take all necessary measures,..., to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack" UN text

so: how is this POV? and if you say the UN is a POV we must not use, justify that! also: how is inserting factually wrong info ok? noclador (talk) 15:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There are many motivations involved here - while the text of the UN's statement may be laudable, there are other POVs that might be more cynical about self-serving statements. There's simply no call to inject such a POV loaded statement into the lead sentence. I ask you again to please revert since you have shown no consensus to support it's inclusion. Ronnotel (talk) 16:39, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

No. If you believe the UN lacks a NPOV then go to Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests and explain, for what reason the inclusion of the UNs resolutions text is "a POV loaded statement", for what reason it is correct to insert your factual error the aim is "to support the 2011 Libyan uprising" and please explain also what you mean with "cynical about self-serving statements". noclador (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There is consensus already established on this page that the sentence as you crafted it was highly POV towards the viewpoint that this is some sort of 'humanitarian mission'. I'm sure the civilians who's house has been bombed might very well subscribe to that point of view and welcome the protection offered by that bomb. Then again, they may have a different point of view. What's undeniable is that this is a military mission and any attempt to ascribe various motivations to the military actors seems somewhat arbitrary at this point. The UN statement is simply propaganda. What's the point? Ronnotel (talk) 17:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You may consider removing yourself from this discussion, as I fear you are not neutral in this case. You call the UN statement "propaganda"!! This is a highly radical and unsubstantiated POV. Also: there is no consensus established on this page as to what should be in the lead paragraph, as you are the only editor so far that believes "it was highly POV towards the viewpoint that this is some sort of 'humanitarian mission'" - it says nowhere in the lead paragraph this is a "humanitarian mission"; it says "a military intervention"! If you believe the UN statement to be propaganda, I invite you to source this point. And please also source that the this intervention is "to support the 2011 Libyan uprising", because this is most definitely an "attempt to ascribe various motivations" to the nations in the coalition. in short, please source your statements; and I would appreciate it if you would take a step back and consider if you are truly neutral on this topic and should be involved in this debate. Thank you, noclador (talk) 17:45, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

The first rule of warfare is that belligerents engage in propaganda. I'm afraid that I don't regard it as non-neutral to recognize that fact. Were I to assert that one side has engaged in propaganda, while the other side hasn't might be more of a give away. My point is that I find the excess verbiage you have inserted into the lead sentence to be unhelpful to the article. It unnecessarily distracts the reader from gaining a concise understanding of the purpose of the article. The place for ascribing motivations for the UN's actions would clearly be at the article describing the UN's resolution - provided it can be supported by reliable sources (which, btw, a primary source document like the resolution's text is hardly a good example). This page is for describing the military intervention. There are many statements on this page concurring with my assessment that the focus of the lead sentence should remain the military intervention.[3][4][5] You do not have a single comment in support of your assertion, which seems to be that the article's main focus should be to understand the rationale for intervention. You have inserted and edit warred over text that has no consensus. You should remove this poorly sourced material. Ronnotel (talk) 18:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I am fed up with this senseless discussion that is keeping me from edit work. Will you be satisfied if we take you the following part: "which called on UN member nations to take all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian-populated areas under threat of attack"? The new lead sentence would then be: "On 19 March 2011 a multi-national coalition began a military intervention in Libya to implement United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973, which was taken in response to events during the 2011 Libyan uprising." When can also take ", which was taken in response to events during the 2011 Libyan uprising." out; but I am not willing to let you put in: "in support of an armed uprising" or Sloanes "a coalition consisting of Canada, France, Italy, the UK and the US" as both are errors and not substantiated by any source. This whole debate actually began with these two errors being inserted into the lead. I f you agree, then please change the sentence as proposed. noclador (talk) 18:27, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

OK. Sounds good. See, that wasn't so tough, was it? Sorry if I was a bit stroppy. Ronnotel (talk) 20:38, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Reaction

The section Reaction is partly duplicated (and in some instances even more detailed and better sourced) duplicated at International reactions to the 2011 military intervention in Libya - questions; should we take the section here out and put it into the aforementioned article (naturally with adding the parts that are here better and more detailed to the other article) or should we keep these two separate? noclador (talk) 13:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree with Noclador, reaction should not be seperated, for some countries it's complicated. Kavas (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

--BOBOlite (talk) 17:34, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO Commander

Move to have Lt.-Gen. Charles Bouchard named as NATO Commander of the mission. Reference: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110325/libya-nato-command-bouchard-110325/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.49.140.94 (talk) 16:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Germany???

Germany needs to be taken out! Today there was a huge uproar when it came out that the German government actually wanted to vote "No" to the UN resolution[6] and Germany rushing it's ship out of the Mediterranean today! The current government - heavily criticized by the opposition today [7][8]- seems to be the only government in Europe that is trying to stay as far away from anything that could sniff of intervention in Libya. In my view Germany is "Not currently committing forces", but also never will! (although the opposition calls for participation). I say: take Germany out! noclador (talk) 23:37, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

For all of those reasons, I say: keep Germany in! If and when NATO takes control, the incongruity will only increase. But very important that the German view is included in this article. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 23:45, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Drat, I'm only in second semester German and can't really understand these sources well without a dictionary. =( Könnten Sie mir doch bitte einen englischen Artikel finden? =) (we're learning the Dativ, so I hope I phrased that right) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:50, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Nothing? Darn, asked in the politest manner possible, and got nothing. Here I was thinking that manners still got you everywhere in the Bundesrepublik, but guess I was wrong. ;_; Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

put balance into images on the right sidebar

i only see western planes and ships. what is this -- a military propaganda? if there have to be so many images, balance them with the military equipment owned by Libya - airplanes, anti-aircraft missiles, etc.. .

also, since west is attacking ground troops as well, those weapons being targeted can also be placed in the same section of images. 89.216.196.129 (talk) 09:24, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

• Yeah, there's some issues with that image. We should find something simpler. Perhaps more of a picture gallery like Iraq War?--Sloane (talk) 00:14, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

the only thing we can put in the image are the Libyan airbases, as we have no idea were the ground forces are. However all the air bases have been bombed and destroyed... but even if the image has some flaws it is still very helpful for any reader to quickly understand the geographical scope of the mission; The USA has also put out it's own map: [9] noclador (talk) 01:25, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Galeb down?

Please, do not add at this point (about 3pm GMT, March 24) the news about Libyan Galeb being shot down over Misrata. See BBC News live blog - France has actively declined to confirm those reports. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but this information is neither officially confirmed nor referenced by multiple sources - in fact, all of the news about this seem to be copies of original ABC news. Please, do wait for confirmation. Peasantwarrior (talk) 14:43, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It's been on ABC, Sky etc. Reuters mentions the ABC report, but are waiting for confirmation, and had already been added to at least the Galeb and Libyan Air Force articles before you mentioned it, I doubt your plea will have much effect. All part of the fog of war I'm afraid!. Regards, Lynbarn (talk) 15:14, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

As someone said, truth is the first casualty of war. However, perhaps adding this now has a bit more merit: according to AP (with Guardian forwarding the news), "US official: French jet has attacked and destroyed a Libyan airplane". However, it still may be a bit too soon to include this, considering the curious fact that Paris declined to confirm the report. Peasantwarrior (talk) 15:16, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure every authority would prefer to control the release of their own news, so it isn't surprising that the French don't wish to confirm anything until they are sure of the facts. Lynbarn (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Attack of the base and destruction of the Galeb confirmed by the French ministry of defense : http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/autres-operations/operation-harmattan-libye/actualites/libye-point-de-situation-operation-harmattan-n-6--BOBOlite (talk) 17:56, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

so this doesn't seem to be an air-to-air shootdown. Note the interesting fact that last time such an event (not counting UAVs) happened in 2000 at the end of the Eritrean-Ethiopian War. --78.2.4.215 (talk) 09:43, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Why aren't the Spanish navies in the map?

Spain has sent a frigate and a submarine, but they don't appear in the map. Why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.99.77.52 (talk) 14:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

• Because it is a bad map.--Sloane (talk) 15:39, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Because this is a current event, and is constantly changing. Things update very fast, making even recent material out of date. If you have a better, sourced, map, please add it. Or just wait a while, and things will be updated as new data is available.Jbower47 (talk) 16:03, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, sorry the map lags a bit behind the article, because I wait for information to get verified and then start to make changes to the map accordingly. I'm working on updating it right as I type this. Jolly Ω Janner 16:34, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks Jolly for making a map in the first place. noclador (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

United Arab Emirates?

Why no mention of UAE? --88.114.217.32 (talk) 18:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

It was in the infobox last I checked. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 19:53, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

NATO Operation name announced by Pentagon

[10]: "NATO has agreed to take on the no-fly zone enforcement mission, and officials at the alliance’s headquarters in Belgium named Canadian air force Lt. Gen. Charles Bouchard to lead Operation Unified Protector. The operation covers enforcing the U.N.-mandated arms embargo and no-fly zone." The problem: so no-fly zone and arms embargo are now both part of Operation Unified Protector. However: as long as the ground attack missions remain separate from the NATO mission, we will have to keep two articles going. Thoughts? noclador (talk) 01:05, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

i agree, but we'll just have to keep an eye on it as they keep changing their mindZaq12wsx (talk) 03:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, hopefully someone realises how crappy the name is and changes it. So keep an eye out just in case. ;) Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 06:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

FAO anyone good with graphics

The DoD/Gortney gives a daily briefing on the number or sorties flown/sites attacked with a break down of US participation. I'm afraid i don't know how to but for those that may want to make a map showing the progression of coalition strikes or a graph of the number of sorties flown you can find it daily here

http://www.defense.gov/transcripts/

Each briefing on OD contains a powerpoint presentation at the top; the latest one (25/03) is interesting as it shows the US is no longer participating in the actual NFZ and is limiting itself to only some strike missions.Zaq12wsx (talk) 03:27, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Italian mission part of US Odissey Dawn

See their page: http://www.aeronautica.difesa.it/Pagine/default.aspx

Is that logical?--78.2.15.204 (talk) 14:22, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it is; Operation Odyssey Dawn is the name of the operation currently being conducted by AFRICOM. From the Pentagon: "Odyssey Dawn, the international coalition’s military enforcement of U.N. Security Council resolution 1973." "the commander of Joint Task Force Odyssey Dawn, which is the name of this operation, is Admiral Sam Locklear," [11]- this is like Operation Desert Storm or Operation Iraqi Freedom, the only difference is that some nations (France, Britain) as of now have chosen to have their own operations alongside the main operation! noclador (talk) 15:29, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

to illustrate the point: in 1991:

• Operation Desert Storm
  • Operation Granby were the British military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Opération Daguet were the French military operations during the Gulf War in 1991
  • Operation FRICTION were the Canadian military operations during the Gulf War in 1991

and now:

• Operation Odyssey Dawn
  • Operation Ellamy are the British military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Opération Harmattan are the French military operations in the military intervention in Libya
  • Operation MOBILE are the Canadian military operations in the military intervention in Libya

and as during Operation Desert Storm smaller military contingents are today again under direct command of the US main command. noclador (talk) 15:44, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

I think you're wrong, when talking about Libya. I see them here as equal, not as a hierarchy. Cheers,--78.2.15.204 (talk) 20:02, 22 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes it's wrong. It's showing American dominane over the operation. Each nation contributed their own efforts in the gulaf war.Other dictionaries are better (talk) 16:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

"These two parts of the war were identified separately by the Americans as Operation Desert Shield and Operation Desert Storm. The French identified it as Opération Daguet" from Operation Granby. Matter settled. Each operation is separate.Don't Americanised it when Obama said it was not to beOther dictionaries are better (talk) 16:22, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

There seems to be a perpetual obsession in the United States with 'being in charge'; for what its worth the initial campaign was simply de-conflicted via the US in a 'clearing house' manner. The US doesn't and can't tell France or Britain what to bomb (and vice versa) nor can they really do anything if they aren't informed (hence Sarkozy jumping the gun with regards to the initial strike). Its simply a case of telling each other what you're about to bomb and constant communication.

the military attacks on Libya are, according to Juppé, "an operation co-ordinated by the US in direct collaboration with the French and British authorities"

Laurent Teisseire, spokesman for the French ministry of defence, told journalists: "There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/sarkozy-nato-libya-france

The same goes for Desert Storm, the US could not order their allies to do anything; they took the capabilities of the allies into consideration and worked with them to develop the overall battle plan.

After all how exactly do you think any coalition government would have reacted if their forces had been ordered into operation sudden death cannon fodder?

Even NATO, which looks likely to be taking 'command' is really a well thought out and well developed co-ordination system where the forces generally work under one 'command structure' that takes operational directions from the NATO council and Secretary General (ssshh don't tell Fox news). But the important point is the chain of command of each component NATO country is still completely independent and under the control of their own countries. During the Kosovo war probably the most significant disagreement between the US military and UK military for some time occurred when Wesley Clark tried to deploy British troops into a situation that Mike Jackson didn't agree with - the end result was the troops weren't deployed because Clark's de-facto authority rested on the principle of asking the british forces to do something - he couldn't order them.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/671495.stm

The initial stages of the Libyan intervention had most input from the US so they co-ordinated the action, but as they've started to pull out (they no longer participate in the NFZ) that co-ordination role has to be done by someone else; the disagreement is over who. Those of us who aren't in the US understand the media needs to portray the US is being perpetually at the forefront of every coalition and giving out the orders but it doesn't work like that in reality.Zaq12wsx (talk) 11:05, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

In a March 25 interview with the BBC, the British Foreign Minister stated that the US is in command. For example at 00:40 of the video of the interview he was asked, "...who has operational command of the various sorties we are currently seeing involving UK forces?", British Foreign Secretary Hague's response was, "They are under a US command...".

Currently there is a transition of command to NATO. 75.47.129.31 (talk) 12:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

William Hague also thought Gadaffi was going to Chavez several weeks ago and was incharge of the laughable SAS/Diplomat fiasco, he doesn't know whats he is talking about

"The UK's deployed assets and personnel fall under the operational command of the Chief of Joint Operations (CJO), Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, who commands the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), in Northwood.

On the air side, the UK's Joint Force Air Component Headquarters (JFACHQ) is controlling the UK's contribution to the air operation in conjunction with the coalition. Air Vice-Marshal Greg Bagwell is the UK's Joint Force Air Component Commander; he is based with his staff at Ramstein with AFRICOM's Air Component HQ.

On the maritime side, Rear Admiral Ian Corder, Commander Operations, is controlling the UK's contribution to maritime operations in conjunction with the coalition. He is based at Northwood

http://www.raf.mod.uk/news/archive.cfm?storyid=D90574E3-5056-A318-A8B3BB02FA1770A4

To be fair theres confusion between actual command which always remains the provision of the national government and the person who sets the overall agenda and co-ordinates; the US co-ordinated the initial stages with liason officers from the UK and France based with them, but a US admiral cannot order a british pilot to bomb a target.Zaq12wsx (talk) 13:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

The part of Gen. Lorimer's statement that preceded the excerpt you quoted was, "This operation is currently under US command, supported closely by French and UK armed forces." If we include this part with the part you excerpted, the US commander is above the British commander, not parallel, in the chain of command. Thus the British Foreign minister is correct that the US commander orders UK sorties.

The British command is under the US command in the chain of command. Please note that even among the British forces the British commander doesn't directly tell each pilot what to do but goes through their chain of command. The top British commander is the second link in the chain of command that begins with the US commander. So the British Foreign Minister is correct. Similarly, the commanders of the respective forces of France, Canada, Italy, and the other countries are either second links or lower in the chain of command, and under the US command. However, this doesn't mean that problems can't occur in the chain of command.

The international coalition is under command of the US, and the US code name for the international coalition operation is Odyssey Dawn. Although some members of the coalition may not like to call the coalition operation by the US code name, there is no dispute that the military coalition is under the command of the US, at least until it is handed over to NATO, which will have its own code name for the operation. 75.47.129.31 (talk) 15:10, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Then its a case of choosing which parts of his quote you agree with and ill choose which parts of his quotes i agree with :) The french have been the clearest about what is happening, there are liaison officer attached to the US who co-ordinate what is happening, if you want to call that co-ordination 'command' then you can do so, but it has no legal ramifications, the duty of care is still attached to the british officers and cannot be transferred to an american admiral hence the british officers have no obligation under the law (ie literally no duty) to follow what the US says (which is what happened between clark and jackson).

And there very much is a dispute whether the operation is under 'US command' or we wouldn't be having this discussion, as i say the french have been the clearest on what the position actually is. Not that it matters much - i doubt any of this will end up in the article and they seem to be splicing up the various components of the military intervention on largely political groundsZaq12wsx (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

There's a subtle difference though, in that US personnel are not directly within the chain of command. If a Royal Navy or Royal Air Force officer were to respond to an order from his direct superior by telling them to fuck off, that would be insubordination and contrary to miracle law. Were he to respond in that way to one of the US officers co-ordinating operations, that would merely be quite rude. As the MoD clarify in their statements, while the coalition is under US leadership, operational authority is vested in the PJHQ. The French position as pointed out further up the page is that there is no overall chain of command. The MoD don't see Odyssey Dawn as the overall operation, merely the US codename for US operations. ("The UK is operating under the Operation name ELLAMY [Note: this is the UK operational name; other allies may operate under a different operational name, eg the US is using Odyssey Dawn]"). - Chrism would like to hear from you 18:19, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

You're only partly correct Chrism- some coalition members like Italy, Denmark, Norway, Spain, ecc. put their contribution under direct US command as soon as their forces arrived on the air bases in Italy. Only UK and France have kept a complete separate chain of command going. noclador (talk) 18:24, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

     I was referring specifically here to the British situation, though the French and I think Canadian as well situation is the same. - Chrism would like to hear from you 19:33, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

UK and France: you're 100% correct, Canada I do not know... the others are under US command. noclador (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Chrism wrote, "US personnel are not directly within the chain of command." As I mentioned, the coalition operation chain of command begins with the US commander of the coalition who is above the top British commander. More specifically, he orders the top British commander to have his organization carry out sorties. The US commander of the coalition operation does not circumvent the British commander. That's why it is called a "chain" of command, where each link of the chain interacts with the adjacent link.

On Chrism's other comment, "The French position as pointed out further up the page is that there is no overall chain of command." - Could you direct me to where that is on the page that you are referring to? Thnx. 75.47.129.31 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I think he meant the guardian article what i linked to discussing all this specifically

While France has been giving the impression it is heading the operation, the military attacks on Libya are, according to Juppé, "an operation co-ordinated by the US in direct collaboration with the French and British authorities". It is being led from US bases in Germany and Italy.

This is apparently the first time London, Paris and Washington have failed to come up with a unified chain of command for the operation.

Laurent Teisseire, spokesman for the French ministry of defence, told journalists: "There is no centralised chain of command at this moment. Everyone is using their own military structures in a co-ordinated fashion."

This unprecedented, three-pronged command is reflected in the different names for the operation: The French are calling it Harmattan (the name of a hot wind that blows over the Sahara); in Britain, it is Operation Ellamy; and in the US, it is Odyssey Dawn.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/22/sarkozy-nato-libya-franceZaq12wsx (talk) 01:57, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

      A chain of command necessarily implies that an officer is obliged to follow the legitimate orders of those above him and those beneath him are required to follow his orders. Your characterisation of the situation as "[more] specifically, he orders the top British commander to have his organization carry out sorties," ignores military law (U.S. officers have no more legal authority to require an Air Vice Marshal of the RAF to do anything than I do, so any "order" he may give is merely a polite request) and the MoD's statement on the subject ("The UK's deployed assets and personnel fall under the operational command of the Chief of Joint Operations (CJO), Air Marshal Sir Stuart Peach, who commands the Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ), in Northwood."[12]) - Chrism would like to hear from you 11:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

[Note added: The quote you gave was in the context of a part of that Royal Air Force (not MoD) reference that preceded it which stated, "This operation is currently under US command".]

Please note that it is a military coalition, i.e. "a collection of countries involved in a military operation who are unified under a single command". The countries have consented to be under a single command to more effectively use their forces in the operation. The chain of command functions as I described whereby the coalition commander does not circumvent the top commander of each of the participant countries, but issues orders for sorties to the top commanders of each country's forces. The orders are issued in a manner appropriate for the military operation to function efficiently, which may include consideration of avoiding having the orders questioned. I think the top British commander, being of the highest competency, would have a good laugh at your characterization of orders as "merely a polite request". 75.47.155.102 (talk) 13:34, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Erm no, though this is going round in circles its best to leave it at you have your opinion, everyone else has theres. For what its worth though the liaison officers do transfer over what is a defacto request; whether its a polite request or not is another matter but that is all it is. The national command has full control over the troops and it is impossible under english law for the commander of british forces to transfer duty of care to a foreign national. Once again i point out the Kosovo situation where the request of Wesley Clark to deploy british forces into a situation that was very dangerous both for them and the possibility of escalating into a wider conflict meant Mike Jackson outright refused. There was nothing Clark could do about that. The liaison officers attached with the co-ordinating force or organisation merely pass on requests, in most instances those requests are agreed to as the coalition has trained on numerous occasions and have a unity of purpose; but there is absolutely no obligation under the law (ie military duty) to do so. In Afghanistan the various NATO forces work to different rules of engagement and differing working practises. There is nothing any other coalition partner can do about that. NATO is and always was a sophisticated co-ordinating body.Zaq12wsx (talk) 14:02, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help to bridge the gap between us if we considered the paragraph in the previously mentioned RAF ref, "This operation is currently under US command, supported closely by French and UK armed forces. AFRICOM is the supported Combatant Command, and UK has liaison officers and staff embedded at every level. "[13] So, although the operation is under US command, the UK has input in the decision of what orders the US coalition commander issues. That should avoid the Clark/Jackson type of conflict that you mentioned. 75.47.155.102 (talk) 14:27, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Liaison officers were present in '99 (and it was under a formal NATO structure) but you have to remember they're only staff! ie staff officers of various grades who take specific courses on planning, co-ordination, effective communication etc they don't have operational command and in the british army are kept very much separate and in fact in many ways subordinate to the operational commanders. The reason for that is they won't have the localised knowledge or picture of whats happening. Staff officers cannot make command decisions and thats why the operational chain of command is kept completely separate from the co-ordinating body. They're broadly there to deconflict potential operations (so they'll agree on how to divide the battlefield into sectors where each national operational command will take control) or they'll pass on information about what the operational commanders are doing. They're there to receive and transmit what other people in a coalition are doing. Now in the case of libya its very likely, almost certain infact, that the UK and France initially let the US decide the plan of action for the SEAD phase - thats because the US had the biggest input in that part of the operation. But that doesn't mean the UK or France was limited to the us plan of action - thats why the french were able to launch planes before the cruise missile attack, or why the UK bombed Gadaffi's compound even though the US said it wouldn't.Zaq12wsx (talk) 16:56, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say that the embedded British officers made command decisions. They are there to help the operation move smoothly, input the British commander's position, and avoid potential conflicts between the coalition commander and the British commander, through their efforts as liason officers.

Zaq12wsx wrote, "But that doesn't mean the UK or France was limited to the us plan of action - thats why ... the UK bombed Gadaffi's compound even though the US said it wouldn't." - It seems that you are suggesting that the UK sortie was without coalition command orders. Do you have a source for that? Please see the article Coalition targets Gadhafi compound. Here's an excerpt, "A coalition military official confirmed to CNN that the compound was targeted because it contains capabilities to exercise command and control over Libyan forces." 75.47.155.102 (talk) 19:35, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes but you've not put that in context, Gortney said Gadaffi wouldn't be targeted but in the UK Liam Fox said he could be and Downing street was privately briefing it would be legal to target gadaffi (and pretty much so was the Elysee Palace), after his compound was hit the US effectively came out and said 'not our missile' but the press in the UK could see that the UK, France and the US had diverging opinions on what was or wasn't a target; AFTER those type of comments came out a few hours later the US put out another statement saying that particular building was a c&c hub and was a valid target and it was only then a unity of purpose with regards to targets was achieved. But look theres obviously nothing i can do to counter the opinions you have, and wiki talk really wasn't meant for this type of discussion so ill leave it at thatZaq12wsx (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

In my previous message I requested a source for your idea that the UK chose to bomb Gadhafi's compound without orders from coalition command, and unfortunately you didn't comply. Your reply only contained more of your unsourced ideas. This is not the way to build an article. I'm interested in the possibility that the UK forces operated without coalition authorization. I think that would be a good addition to Wikipedia if true. I provided a source in my previous message that said that the coalition targeted the Gadhafi compound because of its command and control and that Gadhafi himself was not targeted. That's the source saying it, not me. I'm interested in your theory and in putting it in Wikipedia, but you know we need sources for that. Its unfortunate that you are either unwilling or unable to provide a source. Cheers. 75.47.156.100 (talk) 10:57, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Operation Freedom Falcon

Operation Freedom Falcon should redirect somewhere, if that's the name of the Belgian operation. 65.93.12.101 (talk) 09:48, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Here would be a good target. User:Zscout370 ^{(Return Fire)} 01:16, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Additions to Map

Would someone please update the image to show the Netherlands and UAE aircraft at Decimomannu on Sardinia? Thanks. Van der Knapp (talk) 19:38, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 16:20, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Van der Knapp (talk) 20:53, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

U.S. A-10s and AC-130s used over Libya

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/03/29/3176341.htm?section=justin

Committed U.S. Forces should be updated to reflect this. --68.124.129.194 (talk) 23:29, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It might just be my love of these beautiful machines, but yeah I think use of the mighty Warthog and the almighty Angel of Death- I mean Spooky, merits mention. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 16:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)

Wrong roundels

Italy's & Denmark's should be swapped; I'd {{sofixit}} myself if it wasn't such a fancy multi-svg stuff. ^walk victor falk ^talk 12:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 15:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Bases committed vs map

Are the section listing "Bases committed" and the map at the top of the article meant to match each other? They don't. Or are they meant to show different things? If so, what? Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:06, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

The map is more about the location at which different country's aircraft are stationed, as opposed to listing all the bases which are commited to operate these aircraft. There are two ways in which air bases get put onto the map: they are either the location from which a country's air force being used was stationed before the deployment or they are being used currently as a base to operate over Libya. They should be the same in theory, but if a commited base isn't being used then it won't be on the map. Jolly Ω Janner 21:32, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Many thanks. But I'm stil wondering why the map shows only the Tornado bases in the UK. The Typhoon is based at Coningsby and at Leuchars. There are only four Tornados deployed, but 10 Typhoons? Although the initial Tornado raids were round trips from Marham, it seems now that all the aircraft are at Gioia del Colle airbase, so should the UK bases even be there? I naven't seen Lossiemouth mentioned by anyone. Wittlessgenstein (talk) 21:41, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Too many pictures

In my opinion, there are too many images of the aircraft and ships used in thie intervention. Some images to depict the style of warfare occuring can work well with the text to help give an idea of the event. I think we have too many at the moment, which is drawing too much attention to essentialy a picture gallery of the forces used, as opposed to text. I just don't think this is the way Wikipedia articles are meant to be written. We have pictures of both HMS Westminster and Cumberland (very similar) and 8 photos of fighter jets? This is absurd. One picture of a fighter jet should suffice. If readers want more information on the individual aircraft/ships, then they can click a wikilink. This article is about the intervention and not about individual aircraft. Can I get a consensus on this? Jolly Ω Janner 00:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I generally agree. There's certainly little reason to have both a Type 22 and a Type 23 frigate, nor an F-15 Eagle and an F-15E Strike Eagle. Overall, twenty-one images of weapons systems does seem excessive. How about two fighters, a B-2 bomber, an AWACS, a submarine, a frigate/destroyer and an aircraft carrier, using a suitable cross-section of nationalities? That would be a 67% reduction. Van der Knapp (talk) 18:58, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Example below of what I think you're trying to say. At least it fits on one line (on my screen anyway), which is helpful. Jolly Ω Janner 20:47, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Submarine (US)
• 
  Frigate (UK)
• 
  Aircraft carrier (France)
• 
  Jet fighter (Italy)
• 
  Bomber (USA)
• 
  AWECS (NATO)

Sure, that seems very good. Here's an alternative version, with some musical chairs so the US isn't repeated. Would anyone else care to chime in? Van der Knapp (talk) 02:26, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• 
  Submarine (UK)
• 
  Frigate (France)
• 
  Aircraft carrier (Italy)
• 
  Fighter (Qatar)
• 
  Bomber (US)
• 
  AWACS (NATO)

Most of those pics aren't depicting the units being involved in the operation, though. I've tried to get as many in as possible which are from Libya. Feel free to edit what I've added to the article. Jolly Ω Janner 19:20, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Public Service Announcement

On Wikipedia, it's US, not USA. Do not use U.S.A. or USA, except in a quotation or as part of a proper name (Team USA).Wikipedia:MOS#Abbreviations--Sloane (talk) 21:21, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

I like the green and red in that article, it helps you identify what's ok and what's not without reading the whole thing. Efficient. We now return to our regularly scheduled talk page. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 23:15, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Hmmmm. I've learnt through abuse from some American article "owners" that some Americans cannot deal with their country spoken of any other way, but is it really the best approach when so many other nations are also being mentioned. It really does seem an arrogance to claim that the longer, more accurate abbreviation is wrong, when some editors, including myself, feel far more comfortable with it. HiLo48 (talk) 07:37, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Lynch goes to Libya (The CIA is operating in Libya)

Well apparently the Central Intelligence Agency is operating in Libya. [14] -- hope this is a good enough source. They're mostly gathering info apparently. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 00:50, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

• What else would one do in a kinetic military action besides gather info? We should probably put something in the lead about CIA and SAS boots on the ground.--Sloane (talk) 14:24, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait, the CIA interferes in other countries' revolutions? I didn't see that one coming. Polental (talk) 15:28, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Well it's something you know they'll probably do, but it's nice to have an RS saying they are actually doing it. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:39, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

File:2011 War On Libya Belligerents.svg is outdated, add Sweden.

File:2011 War On Libya Belligerents.svg is outdated, add Sweden. 99.181.140.94 (talk) 17:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Can't see it on here yet. Jolly Ω Janner 19:59, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Libya War.

The Page should be renamed to 2011 Libya War, or Anti-Gaddafi War or something like that. Even in CNN news, they are inferring to it as "Libya War" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgy90 (talk • contribs) 19:05, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

The libyan war refers to the conflict between goverment and anti-goverment Libyan troops, not the military intervention. IRWolfie- (talk) 19:52, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Bit too soon, more sources seem to be referring to it as "Libya Intervention"[15] than "Libya War"[16].--Sloane (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Wait for the Shock troops (not an occupational force), then it's war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.162.225.61 (talk) 05:18, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Actually, wait for an official declaration of war. Conay (talk) 00:38, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't know about the other involved nation, but the US has not made a formal declaration of war since the Second World War. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 03:33, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

It's not a war it's a "kinetic military action". (according to the US President at least.) -- Avanu (talk) 06:19, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

A what? I'd say something about potential military action, but that already has an established meaning. There is a stub about kinetic military action btw. We used to just call them police actions. Sir William Matthew Flinders Petrie Say Shalom! 17:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Civilian casualties

I think that first US statement is about Libyan government claims not about later Vatican and rebel claims?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 16:06, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

Libyan Soldier Casualties

It is wrong... just in the article it proves it is wrong... wither the article is wrong or the number of casualties is wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.21.143.250 (talk) 16:26, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files_for_deletion/2011_March_27#File:Mirage 2000-5 Nancy - Ochey Air Base.jpg

Check WP:NFCC. All opinions welcome. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:42, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Swedish planes at Sigonella

The Swedish planes are now based at Sigonella [17]; please add to the map. Thank you. ^walk victor falk ^talk 17:58, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

 Done Jolly Ω Janner 20:36, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Evacuation in Misurata

In some medias I saw that Turkish ship evacuated some wounded people from Misurata. Can we verify this information?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 18:33, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I found sources and added the information to 2011 Libyan civil war, "Humanitarian situation". Olegwiki (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

Map, Iceland

Can anybody enlighten me as to what extend Iceland is participating in the implementation of the no-fly zone and if being a NATO member automatically makes one a participant? Stefán Örvarr Sigmundsson (talk) 21:03, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, unless a nation specifically opts out of ongoing NATO operations, you're in it. The only nation to chicken out of all Libyan military operations: Germany! noclador (talk) 03:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Map, Germany

I think it is misleading that Germany is not on the map. If not all NATO members are on the map, then only those taking part directly should be. But there is no clear cut off for "taking part directly" as some countries provide recon, others supress air defences, or enforce the no-fly zone, et cetera. Only six countries take part in the bombing campaign: France, Britain, Canada, Denmark, Belgium, and Norway http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/05/nato-lacking-strike-aircraft-libya . So, Germany in blue. ^walk victor falk ^talk 23:45, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

NATO commands are made up by soldiers of all member nations, Germany totally chickened out and not only removed its men from AWACS planes, its ships from ongoing missions and its officers from the commands involved- but no other country did that. Therefore the map is correct as it is. noclador (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Map

Is it possible to update the map to include Sweden? Quite vivid blur (talk) 11:29, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I pressume you mean all of Sweden, because the bottom tip is already included. Yes, the map can be cropped to include the whole of Sweden, but it isn't, because we don't know of any Swedish air bases involved. Jolly Ω Janner 15:03, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

The map is lacking the french aircraft carrier Charles de Gaulle, which is operating right now off Libya. Thx. --BOBOlite (talk) 19:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Brig. Gen. Mark van Uhm

I'm seeing a lot of references to him in the news but cannot find an article or even a mention. Is he in command of NATO in Libya or not?

no, he is not in command of operations in Libya. the command chain for Libya is the following:

• Admiral James G. Stavridis (Supreme Allied Commander)
  • Canada Lt. General Charles Bouchard (Operational Commander)
    • United States Lieutenant General Ralph J. Jodice II (Air Commander)
    • Italy Vice Admiral Rinaldo Veri (Maritime Commander)

noclador (talk) 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

HMS Triumph

I believe the sub is no longer off the coast of Libya and should be removed from the map. Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 20:19, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

It's there, because it was involved in a naval attack (firing of cruise missiles). This will, over time, become a historical event rather than a current one, so that's why it's kept there. Jolly Ω Janner 22:49, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

"Responsibility to protect" section

I think that the "Responsibility to protect" section of this article needs to be removed. It is unsourced, and reads like original research (e.g. "If the international community, not the local opposition movement, successfully removes Gaddafi from power, responsibility to protect starts to receive precedence over Westphalian sovereignty from then on."). We should not be predicting the effect of this intervention on the concept of sovereignty in international politics. If a reliable source can be provided that touches on these issues, that's fine, but otherwise let's leave it out. If there is no response to this message, I may remove the section myself in a week or so.--Danaman5 (talk) 15:54, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

I've directed the IP who added the bit to this section. C628 (talk) 16:09, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

Timeline is wrong

Nato assumed full command on 3/31 Sources: [18] [19] [20] -- Erroneuz1 (talk) 17:43, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

No fly zone policy

Its involving whole Libya, not just Gadafi, so at that box should be presented Rebel side also. Downing of own MiG-23 was actually first indcident after no-fly-zone was in affect. Today AJE is showning Rebel chopter Mi-24, which can be considered as one more incident regarding no-fly-zone over Libya. Add that to text please. Interesting, so far, only incidents respecting no-fly-zone were from Rebel side. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 16:57, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

YN I've added the Mig-23 interception, but I can't find any sources about the Mi-24 [21] (including your reference). Not sure what you mean exactly about the box. ^walk victor falk ^talk 20:29, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

False statement : Now its stated for 9 April:...This is the first no-fly zone violation by any aircraft since NATO took command... This must be corrected. First violation of no-fly-zone was by Rebel side on 19th March, when Rebels MiG-23 was shot down by own side over Bengazi. UN resolution was adopted April 17th. The law is to be obeyed at the moment of declaration, so stating "...since NATO took command." is fake information. One could say, since Moon apogee in 2011-so irrelevant. Also must be added other violations: 10 April: Violation of no-fly-zone by Rebel side, Mi-24 used and also chopters (Chinhook) from Tobruk, which is actually statement from Rebel side. check article Second Battle of Ajdabiya. All stated there. So i think this must be added, and each other violation of UN resolution. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 17:53, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. For the box, its infobox at the beggining of article (Belligerents), why just Gadafi side is present. Resolution is involving all Libyan airspace, Rebels also. So include all sides. Or exclude it. --94.140.88.117 (talk) 18:24, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Coalition countries

As far as I know there is no information about which countries haven't participated in naval blockade\sorties yet. So can you find out information about it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.193.139.242 (talk) 07:12, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Strange figures

I am not a supporter or anything like that, but come on "1,300 tanks, 550 armoured carriers, 1,750 field guns destroyed" they don't even own such an amount of tanks, just take a look at the "Libyen army" wikipedia article. Let's stay correct! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.254.123.20 (talk) 01:17, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

The Libyan Army article says that before the uprisings, they had nearly 2000 tanks. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 02:51, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

uncovering the veil

Sadly, in all of the content, I didn't find a single mention of a) Libya's decision to change it's Petro tied currency (from the US$); b) Ghadaffi's decision to implement a new African Union currency, essentially doing away with the Franc which is used in many countries in Africa.

Please read this good analysis by Peter Dale Scott:

http://www.japanfocus.org/-Peter_Dale-Scott/3522

As Ellen Brown has pointed out, first Iraq and then Libya decided to challenge the petrodollar system and stop selling all their oil for dollars, shortly before each country was attacked. Kenneth Schortgen Jr., writing on Examiner.com, noted that "[s]ix months before the US moved into Iraq to take down Saddam Hussein, the oil nation had made the move to accept Euros instead of dollars for oil, and this became a threat to the global dominance of the dollar as the reserve currency, and its dominion as the petrodollar.." According to a Russian article titled "Bombing of Lybia - Punishment for Qaddafi for His Attempt to Refuse US Dollar," Qaddafi made a similarly bold move: he initiated a movement to refuse the dollar and the euro, and called on Arab and African nations to use a new currency instead, the gold dinar. Qaddafi suggested establishing a united African continent, with its 200 million people using this single currency. … The initiative was viewed negatively by the USA and the European Union, with French president Nicolas Sarkozy calling Libya a threat to the financial security of mankind; but Qaddafi continued his push for the creation of a united Africa. And that brings us back to the puzzle of the Libyan central bank. In an article posted on the Market Oracle, Eric Encina observed:

        One seldom mentioned fact by western politicians and media pundits: the Central Bank of Libya is 100% State Owned.... Currently, the Libyan government creates its own money, the Libyan Dinar, through the facilities of its own central bank. Few can argue that Libya is a sovereign nation with its own great resources, able to sustain its own economic destiny. One major problem for globalist banking cartels is that in order to do business with Libya, they must go through the Libyan Central Bank and its national currency, a place where they have absolutely zero dominion or power-broking ability. Hence, taking down the Central Bank of Libya (CBL) may not appear in the speeches of Obama, Cameron and Sarkozy but this is certainly at the top of the globalist agenda for absorbing Libya into its hive of compliant nations.17

Libya not only has oil. According to the IMF, its central bank has nearly 144 tons of gold in its vaults. With that sort of asset base, who needs the BIS [Bank of International Settlements], the IMF and their rules.18 Gaddafi’s recent proposal to introduce a gold dinar for Africa revives the notion of an Islamic gold dinar floated in 2003 by Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad, as well as by some Islamist movements.19 The notion, which contravenes IMF rules and is designed to bypass them, has had trouble getting started. But today the countries stocking more and more gold rather than dollars include not just Libya and Iran, but also China, Russia, and India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.80.104.182 (talk) 05:46, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

Dutch helicopter

Is this lose part of Military intervention in Libya [22].--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:15, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Number of destroyed tanks

Is there correct number of 1,300 destroyed tanks?--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 14:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)

Timeline Updates

Going a bit quiet aren't we? If it can be believed, the reportage until June is excellent. As soon as the British and French hellfire-gunships arrived though, it has fallen suspiciously silent. What are the gunships doing? And the UCAVS? The French - and especially the British - use of Hellfire missiles MUST be known and be under as tight a surveillance as is humanly possible. There has been almost no coverage for June, and, as of the 16th, absolutely NOTHING entered for July. For all we know, its mass genocide over there. Can we update this please?

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.100.215.127 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2011 (UTC)

Just added some strikes in august I read in AP articles.

Libya 17th February 2011 as a source

I'd like to see if people have thoughts as to the use of Libya 17th February 2011 as a source on this page, since it's been used a lot as a reference for the air strikes carried out each day. Personally, I don't think it's a good source; at least what's used as a source seems to either regurgitate information from news sources or come up with stuff itself. If it's taken from other sources, than we should be using these other sources, rather than relying on a distinctly POV/primary source. If it can't be verified by other sources, than I don't think I'd take Libya 17th...'s word for it. C628 (talk) 01:24, 24 May 2011 (UTC)

Coalition has admitted killing some civilians

There is currently a statement on the page saying "The U.S. military claims it has no knowledge of civilian casualties", this is clearly out of date now as the Coalition has admitted killing some civilians, in the 19th of June Air Strike at least, see here: NATO admits killing civilians in Tripoli air strike - France 24 - 20/06/2011. This needs to be updated. --Hibernian (talk) 05:18, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of August

I understand that no sources were cited in the first two strikes, but it costs money to view archived AP articles, so I can't cite a source. However, the August 8-9 strike did have a source, so why was it deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.129.89.173 (talk) 01:22, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Um, I can see the August bits. In fact, I just added a reference to the first one. Perhaps try purging the page? C628 (talk) 01:27, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

this article has strong pro-western bias

Why not quote some middle east sources about motives behind intervention, namely 'NATO after vast oil reserves in Lybia' ? 12.31.229.178 (talk) 00:03, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Suggesting an op-ed by an African source which you call "Middle Eastern" that can't decide how to spell Libya is not going to improve the page. --Yalens (talk) 15:58, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

I didn't know that Press_TV of Iran is in Africa, but thank you for giving me a free geography lesson. Very constructive, and even if it was true, you are totally missing the point with your mispeling/geography arguement. 69.209.194.208 (talk) 00:57, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I believe the point that was trying to be made there was that the article you linked to isn't a particularly good source to add, since it's about merely the guess of one person who has no connection to the actual events, and is speaking from an extremely biased perspective himself (a representative of the "Stop the War Coalition" is not likely to have a reasonably balanced view of the situation). If you think the article is biased towards a Western viewpoint, please provide examples of what you think displays this bias, and then they can be dealt with specifically. C628 (talk) 02:08, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

An extremely biased "Kill Gaddafi" western perspective claims that intervention is due to democracy etc. Therefor a balance is needed from 'extremely biased' middle eastern perspective "Stop the War". What is so hard to comprehend there? Or maybe a south African view on 'Gaddafi's creation of the African Investment Bank in Sirte (Libya) and the African Monetary Fund to be based in Cameroon will supplant the IMF and undermine Western economic hegemony in Africa,'. There are many different perspectives being published throughout the world media, for those who want to read and listen. 216.80.93.67 (talk) 03:35, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Okay, can you point to examples within this article of an extremely biased "kill Gaddafi" western perspective? C628 (talk) 03:48, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Just take a look at the lead. It's comical. No objections even mentioned, no overstepping of UN mandate, no alternative motivations for intervention, no nothing but the regular US mainstream story. 216.80.93.67 (talk) 21:50, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

I don't see that "kill Gaddafi" western perspective here.

Perhaps our IP editors should take a look at the article on Protests against the 2011 military intervention in Libya. That might be where this kind of stuff goes.

The more Stop the War Coalition pieces they have, the better. They should never be forgotten. Just make sure the sources are archived.

-- Randy2063 (talk) 04:46, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

Precisely, you see it only covered up under the 'democracy' story. One of the points i was making. 216.80.93.67 (talk) 22:19, 13 August 2011 (UTC)

here's the 'kill gaddafi' opinion from putin.[23] 99.140.179.146 (talk) 23:02, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

yep, i don't see putin mentioned once in the article. he's quite a notable person i think and his opinion should be cited. i don't have account so someone logged in will have to do it. cheers. 99.140.179.146 (talk) 23:05, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

Circumstances of intervention

I am concerned that this article, together with others linked to it, seems to concentrate on the suggestion that the intervention was supposed to be limited to a 'no-fly' zone. In fact, UN Security Council resolution 1973 shows permissible activities to go well beyond this. Paragraph 1 of the resolution in fact refers to 'all necessary measures'. Comments on various message boards reflect the mistaken concept that the intervention was supposed to be limited to the 'no-fly' zone. Careful reading of the resolution strongly suggests there were few actions that were actually barred. The only barred action appears to have been a foreign occupation force. Essentially, arms shipments to the rebels and even 'boots on the ground' were actually authorised provided that they didn't become an occupation force. I'd like to see some discussion on this. Agent0060 13:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agent0060 (talk • contribs)

you are correct - the resolution does indeed allow EVERYTHING but an occupation force. However with much of the media not reading the resolution and just blabbing about the spin fed to it by the politicians there are actually very few sources, which clearly say so... i.e. Der Spiegel keeps on saying that the resolution explicitly forbids "ground troops" (German: "Bodentruppen"), even though they are not even mentioned in the resolution. We can change the article, but we might run then into the problem that we have no reputable source saying so, we just have the actual resolution, which is a primary document... any thoughts how to work around this? noclador (talk) 18:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, the resolution (oddly, like most UNSC resolutions) is quite clear on the matter and you both are correct. I do not think this is much of an interpretation really, I mean the resolution is an RS for itself... Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:01, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Lenght

Some people has put a lot of effort into the "Actions by international forces" section and it has been a great way to follow the intervention. However, the section is becoming is becoming an unwieldy and WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of actions in a conflict that now spans more than half a year. Instead of covering each day, perhaps it could be reduced to cover each week or month in summary?--217.157.165.109 (talk) 20:35, 4 October 2011 (UTC)

I, being that some people, understand your point, as I have been finding this article increasingly becoming harder to navigate. However, If we do this, each individual summary may become too long. The Drone Attacks In Pakistan Article, while it may not cover every day, does go through the span of years. I think we should wait for the war to end before we make a decision. 50.129.89.173 (talk) 13:13, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I, having watched with increasing alarm at the time at takes to load the page, was thinking about splitting the timeline into a seperate article (Timeline of the 2011 military intervention in Libya]]), where all the current stuff in the "action by international forces" section would go (eg, the summary of all the daily strikes), and leave only unusual or extraordinary events in this article. C628 (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

The article is too long and it becomes very difficult to read it using a mobile device. I request that the article be split away into different articles of not more than 60KB each.--Anirudh Emani (talk) 16:34, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Casualties

All the casualty figures are from the now defunct Gaddafi regime with no independent verification for most of them. Could we get some independent sourcing or clarify more clearly that they are "claimed" casualties not proven ones. --JamieHughes (talk) 20:20, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

It's worse than that Hughes. These Libyan health ministry claims were torn to shreds by the journalists on the ground who disproved almost all the regimes claims. And the NTC doesn't recognize those estimates. We should really go with an estimate from a credible organization. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.116.228.81 (talk) 10:10, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Italy published bombing stats:

In their first official breakdown of facts and figures about Italy's air campaign over Libya this year, officials said military aircraft deployed 710 guided bombs and missiles during sorties. Italian Air Force Tornados and AMX fighter bombers deployed 550 bombs and missiles, while Navy AV8s deployed 160 guided bombs, the officials said during an event at Trapani Air Base in Sicily to honor military personnel involved in the conflict.

http://www.defensenews.com/story.php?i=8567271&c=EUR&s=AIR — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.91.109.191 (talk) 23:03, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

NYT article on casualties

New York Times has a report on civilian casualties caused by NATO.[24]--Anders Feder (talk) 01:11, 18 December 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of Libyan airstrikes

This article originally stated that the imposition of a no-fly zone followed airstrikes being conducted by Gaddafi's forces against the Libyan rebels. I've changed this to 'allegations that airstrikes were being conducted...', but perhaps that doesn't go far enough: the truth is that these allegations were false, or at best unproved. An Amnesty International investigation in June 2011 found 'There is no evidence that aircraft or heavy anti-aircraft machine guns were used against crowds.'[25] I don't deny that the NATO intervention was initially motivated by the fear that Gaddafi might use his air force against the rebels, but we should probably note that he hadn't actually done so. Anyone else have any thoughts on this? Robofish (talk) 12:51, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Crowds are not the only thing they can be used against. While we may need better sourcing for air strikes taking place, I find Amnesty Internationals claim to be incredibly narrow and not enough to change the language to be stronger against. --OuroborosCobra (talk) 16:16, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

LARAF was dispatched before the intervention, it bombed ammunition bunkers, we have pilots who defected in-air with orders to bomb targets in Cyrenaica, footages from international news teams which witnessed dropping bombs on rebel locations. Also other reason was logistical, cutting off supply lines and preventing Gaddafi forces transporting military, paramilitary and mercenry forces on LZs like Benina airport. As for AA guns, you might want to read CJ Chivers report from his time in Nafusa Mountains, he is former Marine and currently journalist working for New York Times. EllsworthSK (talk) 23:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Criticism

The last revert is solely done for getting the established information of this page back, if you have any problem with the edit, kindly explain it here, instead of reverting it back without giving any reason. Clarificationgiven (talk) 05:25, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

This page should not be describing Libya's resource wealth. The accusation is enough. The resource wealth can be described but only if it is sourced from an article accusing the intervention on being based on this and should be presented as such when written down. Also the Bank gold resources part makes no mention or accusation regarding NATO criticism, there fore should not be here. Seamus Milne is far to irrelevant and biased to be here in my opinion. You can probably find a far more credible expert's view to add. Stumink (talk)

Added a bit, and did it per your request, sure i will try finding much reliable writer if i thought of getting these information back. Clarificationgiven (talk) 12:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Clarificationgiven is an indef blocked user now, just to let everyone know. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:51, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Ridiculously biased

I can only happythis article has been hijacked by anti-Obama zealots. I added the official UN Human Rights Council estimate of civilian casualties, with reference, to the "civilian losses" section, just to let you guys compare that to the entries above. Or have a look at the "Military losses on the coalition side" and see if you get the impression that the number of losses is zero, as it was: not a single coalition soldier was lost in action. This article is a political propaganda piece. 213.112.198.121 (talk) 06:52, 22 March 2013 (UTC)

Article Size

I have looked at the article history, and it shows that the article is presently 134K, well above the article size stated in WP:TOOLONG for the article to be split. What section should be spunout and become a subarticle?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 15:19, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. I think all of the stuff listing everything every country contributed could be put in the articles for those country's missions, if they exist.Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

It has been stated by another editor, elsewhere, that the content regarding the individual nation's contributions only have scope of their operations before NATO took over overall command. If this is the case, the scope of those articles would not be the correct location of the transfer of content. Perhaps something else can be spunout?--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 02:21, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest to replace the section Chronology with a single paragraph and spin the more detailed chronology out into the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 article as the chronology section lists the events that led to this resolution. noclador (talk) 02:54, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I do not see a reason why that cannot be the case.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 03:56, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Chronology of first day events

Should I be really surprised that the actual first strikes which were made by the french air force in Benghazi are now reported after the US/UK tomahawk strikes which took place far later during the 19 March? Is revisionist history on its way on both this article and the Libyan_civil_war general article? With a cryptic sentence "Air strikes against Libyan Army tanks and vehicles by French jets were since confirmed" coming thereafter here and supposed somehow to explain that blatantly misleading chronology? ...Sensi.fr —Preceding undated comment added 18:08, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Spillover of fighting to Mali and attack on U.S. embassy

Shouldn't legacy events facilitated by the intervention be covered? I don't see a discussion of any of these major events that followed the military action in Libya. Candleabracadabra (talk) 18:42, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

no, all these events have their own articles and unless there are major reputable sources making an explicit connection between the intervention in Libya and other events, we can not and should not draw conclusions on our own. noclador (talk) 21:19, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

Are there sources that don't tie the fighting in Mali and the attack on the U.S. embassy in Libya to the military intervention there and its aftermath? Candleabracadabra (talk) 23:29, 25 May 2013 (UTC)

You need to provide sources as Noclador says. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:02, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

• http://www.stratfor.com/weekly/mali-besieged-fighters-fleeing-libya
• http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/world/africa/looted-libyan-arms-in-mali-may-have-shifted-conflicts-path.html?_r=0
• http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/apr/28/libya-mali-islamist-violence-tripoli "The impetus for this uprising came from ethnic Tuareg soldiers who had fought alongside Muammar Gaddafi and fled south when his regime fell. They were later augmented by jihadists from Libya and across north Africa, who triggered international condemnation for their destruction of ancient Sufi Muslim shrines in Timbuktu. The fear across the Maghreb is that the French operation that has pushed them out of the northern cities has inadvertently compounded problems elsewhere in north Africa as jihadist units disperse." Candleabracadabra (talk) 00:21, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Please have a look at the article title: 2011 military intervention in Libya - the legacy events you mention are repercussion of the Libyan civil war. Sure the intervention helped overthrow Gaddafi, but the intervention is not the sole reason and just a part of the wider picture; i.e. the Stratfor article begins with "Mali has experienced perhaps the most significant external repercussions from the downfall of the regime of Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.", and does not once say the situation in Mali stems from the intervention. The New York Times article mentions NATO only in one paragraph and that one asks why NATO "did little to contain weapons that foreign military intervention helped set loose." and the Guardian article does neither mention NATO not the 2011 intervention in Libya. To arbitrary tie events to a sub-aspect of a wider conflict (in this case the Libyan civil war) smacks of POV-pushing. However the first two articles above could be added to the Libyan civil war page, while all three of them could be also added to the Northern Mali conflict (2012–present) article. noclador (talk) 02:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

The conflicts aftermath and repurcussions are part of the story. The sources clearly establish this. If you have sources that dispute this I would be interested to have a look at them. Candleabracadabra (talk) 02:24, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

none of your sources backs up your claim that the intervention is the reason for any spillovers. they say the reason was the fall of Gaddafi/civil war in Libya. I don't need to bring sources, as I don't want to add anything. You want to add some theory of yours, so please bring sources that say that because of the 2011 military intervention in Libya this or that happened. noclador (talk) 02:38, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

I will be adding an aftermath section based on coverage in reliable independent sources. You are welcome to improve it and include content based on reliable independent sources. The intervention and its conseqquences are important to cover. Thanks. Candleabracadabra (talk) 03:06, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

You might want to read WP:CONSENSUS. There is no consensus to add this. Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:47, 26 May 2013 (UTC)

Italian forces commander

Italian commander was not Silvio Berlusconi, but Giorgio Napolitano (President of the Republic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.87.215.141 (talk) 14:26, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

true! you're correct. noclador (talk) 14:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

The most important part is not in the article at all

This article should explain the scope of the No-Flyzone that was agreed and its subsequent violation in where loyalist military vehicles were attacked, even inside civilian cities. 46.59.34.174 (talk) 08:03, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

Update and Cleanup

A few years have passed since these events took place and there is more information lying about now that "the dust has settled". What I'm proposing is to update the article with a bit of reorganising, adding clarity, new reviews, etc. I would contribute myself and welcome others to do so also. Any comments? ArticunoWebon (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2014 (UTC)

If only it was as easy to Cleanup, and undo, the total mess left by this military intervention? That said, fully updating the article - to take account of the bloody chaos and terrorism since the start of the conflict - would be most telling. War on Terror or War-of-Terror?

Military losses on the Libyan side

There is a section entitled "Military losses on the coalition side" but none "Military losses on the Libyan side". As the intervention was largely targeting the Libyan military this seems an odd omission. Are there any figures available? Even if there are not a section stating why would strengthen the article. The Libyan military was about 50% conscript I believe so this is also relevant for totally impact on the population and wider society. RogerHyam (talk) 16:32, 21 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on 2011 military intervention in Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130528084139/http://forsvaret.dk/FTK/Nyt%20og%20Presse/missionupdate/Pages/Missionupdate31oktober.aspx to http://forsvaret.dk/FTK/Nyt%20og%20Presse/missionupdate/Pages/Missionupdate31oktober.aspx

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:18, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

The Royal Canadian Air Force revisionist nonsense

I haven't visited this article for years and it has apparently been modified with heavy nationalist and revisionist bias: there was not any "Royal Canadian Air Force" aircraft present there in the initial days of the foreign intervention -the BBC mentioned then that "Canada is sending warplanes to the region"- and none "undertaking sorties across Libya" then (none of the two mentioned sources, BBC and CNN, are claiming so) yet they are unjustifiably mentioned as being part of that initial intervention in this article and another mentioned below, blatantly misleading the readers...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Civil_War_(2011)#Course_of_the_war

Intervention began March 19th, the first Canadian jets left Trapani Airbase for sorties on the evening of March 20th, first Canadian bombing missions began March 21st. And that is sourced to the Canadian Minister of Defense: i.e. here. noclador (talk) 00:19, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 20 external links on 2011 military intervention in Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110516041335/http://ejpress.org/article/news/germany/49710 to http://www.ejpress.org/article/news/germany/49710
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110310051829/http://www.google.com:80/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjK-uTaUi4eIZffTsS13LCaFVYQw?docId=CNG.49104d077a72cbffeafe9d3689e92793.af1 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gjK-uTaUi4eIZffTsS13LCaFVYQw?docId=CNG.49104d077a72cbffeafe9d3689e92793.af1
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720165559/http://c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/2011libya.military.rel.pdf to http://c-span.org/uploadedfiles/Content/Documents/2011libya.military.rel.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110831014300/http://thesofiaecho.com/2011/03/30/1067837_bulgarian-frigate-on-its-way-to-libyan-coast to http://thesofiaecho.com/2011/03/30/1067837_bulgarian-frigate-on-its-way-to-libyan-coast
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xkwnb3GP to http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canadian+warship+route+JTF2+sent+Libya/4369428/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130528050132/http://forsvaret.dk/FTK/Nyt%20og%20Presse/missionupdate/Pages/Missionupdate1april.aspx to http://forsvaret.dk/FTK/Nyt%20og%20Presse/missionupdate/Pages/Missionupdate1april.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720060122/http://www.difesa.it:80/Operazioni_Militari/Operazioni_internazionali_in_corso/Libia-odissea-alba/Pagine/Contributonazionale.aspx to http://www.difesa.it/OPERAZIONI_MILITARI/OPERAZIONI_INTERNAZIONALI_IN_CORSO/LIBIA-ODISSEA-ALBA/Pagine/Contributonazionale.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110412120322/http://www.allheadlinenews.com:80/briefs/articles/90043651?After%20hesitation%2C%20Jordan%20joins%20in%20Libya%20no-fly%20campaign to http://www.allheadlinenews.com/briefs/articles/90043651?After%20hesitation%2C%20Jordan%20joins%20in%20Libya%20no-fly%20campaign
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110504233801/http://www.af.mil:80/news/story.asp?id=123248695 to http://www.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123248695
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110720133405/http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=6339 to http://www.africom.mil/getArticle.asp?art=6339
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110401173045/http://www.setimes.com:80/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2011/03/30/nb-09 to http://www.setimes.com/cocoon/setimes/xhtml/en_GB/newsbriefs/setimes/newsbriefs/2011/03/30/nb-09
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120620151553/http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201103/3169576.htm?desktop to http://australianetworknews.com/stories/201103/3169576.htm?desktop
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110323105338/http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-23 to http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-23
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110719151548/http://gulftoday.ae/portal/0541d362-7d51-4f53-afd1-f225ca1e2c41.aspx to http://gulftoday.ae/portal/0541d362-7d51-4f53-afd1-f225ca1e2c41.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110702203250/http://www.presstv.ir:80/detail/186713.html to http://www.presstv.ir/detail/186713.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20130131013826/http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hKpomyAdd4B-pnAriRgoZnOb_CvA?docId=CNG.884081aef56acf1a58718197b01abfb5.11 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5hKpomyAdd4B-pnAriRgoZnOb_CvA?docId=CNG.884081aef56acf1a58718197b01abfb5.11
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110725013459/http://www.mod.uk:80/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/AirmanKilledInRoadAccidentInItaly.htm to http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/DefenceNews/MilitaryOperations/AirmanKilledInRoadAccidentInItaly.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111017143157/http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084681,00.html to http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,2084681,00.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110811133242/http://www.foxnews.com:80/politics/2011/06/10/gates-blasts-nato-questions-future-alliance/ to http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/06/10/gates-blasts-nato-questions-future-alliance/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120118195234/http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidANA20110427T111357ZJAX16 to http://www.zawya.com/story.cfm/sidANA20110427T111357ZJAX16

\N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on 2011 military intervention in Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://lejournaldemontreal.canoe.ca/actualites/national/archives/2011/03/20110318-100858.html
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110322155812/http://www.defense.gouv.fr:80/operations/autres-operations/harmattan/libye-debut-des-operations-aeriennes-francaises to http://www.defense.gouv.fr/operations/autres-operations/harmattan/libye-debut-des-operations-aeriennes-francaises
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20130131013825/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlVs9hxP8XPo-vKGn7qiGvWwTNPA?docId=0f981b809b884d7a93d3681a82f87189 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlVs9hxP8XPo-vKGn7qiGvWwTNPA?docId=0f981b809b884d7a93d3681a82f87189
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110919075221/http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=app-98c26f2c-fa54-44f6-b3b7-d4a1adc6556e&show_article=1 to http://www.breitbart.com/image.php?id=app-98c26f2c-fa54-44f6-b3b7-d4a1adc6556e&show_article=1
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2011-04-29/18912/Croatia_to_send_two_officers_for_NATO%B4s_Libya_mission

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:21, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on 2011 military intervention in Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive {newarchive} to http://lejournaldemontreal.canoe.ca/actualites/national/archives/2011/03/20110318-100858.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2011-04-29/18912/Croatia_to_send_two_officers_for_NATO%B4s_Libya_mission

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:41, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 24 external links on 2011 military intervention in Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-19
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.nationalpost.com/arts/books/NATO+reaches+agreement+Libya+command/4498007/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/12/gaddafi-army-kill-half-million
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=249498
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2011/03/201131218852687848.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE72B0DW20110312
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/overnight-bombardment-on-ras-lanuf/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/technology/Canadian%20warship%20ordered%20Libya/4367124/story.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12856665
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/mar/24/france-turkey-nato-libya
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canadian+warship+route+JTF2+sent+Libya/4369428/story.html
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://lejournaldemontreal.canoe.ca/actualites/national/archives/2011/03/20110318-100858.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/23/354714/danish-f-16s-drop-their-first-bombs-on-libya.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/apr/04/libya-uk-increase-tornado-jets
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news24.com/World/News/Libya-no-fly-zone-should-be-easy-20110318?amp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=w6299809
• Added archive {newarchive} to http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2011-04-29/18912/Croatia_to_send_two_officers_for_NATO%B4s_Libya_mission
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13843798
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120121233954/http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ExecSum2011/F-15E_Libya_21%20Mar%2011.pdf to http://usaf.aib.law.af.mil/ExecSum2011/F-15E_Libya_21%20Mar%2011.pdf
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/23/354704/usmc-reveals-details-of-f-15e-pilot-rescue.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h8d5ep2e9mHsPV2Tb537rf2CdsJA?docId=6680198
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13858200
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjq4WZw03V_fCs0F44efTYDXJwWg?docId=729f1c9498f142d783e7d216f8f05c37
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:50, 22 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 31 external links on 2011 military intervention in Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://blogs.aljazeera.net/live/africa/libya-live-blog-march-19
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120127034759/http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/03/20/libya-raf-jets-join-attack-on-air-defence-systems-91466-28369872/ to http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/2011/03/20/libya-raf-jets-join-attack-on-air-defence-systems-91466-28369872/
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/12/gaddafi-army-kill-half-million
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://nowlebanon.com/NewsArticleDetails.aspx?ID=249498
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2011/03/201131218852687848.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFLDE72B0DW20110312
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://archive.libyafeb17.com/2011/03/overnight-bombardment-on-ras-lanuf/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.canada.com/technology/Canadian%2Bwarship%2Bordered%2BLibya/4367124/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160201201746/http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/odyssey-dawn-phase-one-of-libya-military-intervention-53247.html to http://www.theepochtimes.com/n2/world/odyssey-dawn-phase-one-of-libya-military-intervention-53247.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-12856665
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/mar/24/france-turkey-nato-libya
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canadian%2Bwarship%2Broute%2BJTF2%2Bsent%2BLibya/4369428/story.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110309222211/http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/mobile/index-eng.asp to http://www.cefcom-comfec.forces.gc.ca/pa-ap/ops/mobile/index-eng.asp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/23/354714/danish-f-16s-drop-their-first-bombs-on-libya.html
• Added archive https://archive.is/2012.07.28-162540/http://www.defensenews.com/article/20111214/DEFSECT01/112140301/Italy-Gives-Bombing-Stats-for-Libya-Campaign to http://www.defensenews.com/article/20111214/DEFSECT01/112140301/Italy-Gives-Bombing-Stats-for-Libya-Campaign
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110401104642/http://svt.se/2.22584/1.2374883/nato_har_fragat_sverige_om_jas-plan_till_libyen to http://svt.se/2.22584/1.2374883/nato_har_fragat_sverige_om_jas-plan_till_libyen
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721080950/http://www.wam.org.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1300255413630&p=1135099400124&pagename=WAM%2FWamLocEnews%2FW-T-LEN-FullNews to http://www.wam.org.ae/servlet/Satellite?c=WamLocEnews&cid=1300255413630&p=1135099400124&pagename=WAM%2FWamLocEnews%2FW-T-LEN-FullNews
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/apr/04/libya-uk-increase-tornado-jets
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.news24.com/World/News/Libya-no-fly-zone-should-be-easy-20110318?amp
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=w6299809
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.croatiantimes.com/news/General_News/2011-04-29/18912/Croatia_to_send_two_officers_for_NATO%B4s_Libya_mission
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120322114802/http://www.eata.ee/en/2011/03/estonia-contributes-humanitarian-aid-not-troops-to-libya.html to http://www.eata.ee/en/2011/03/estonia-contributes-humanitarian-aid-not-troops-to-libya.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110420140900/http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/turkey-indonesia-call-for-ceasefire-in-libya/433604 to http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/turkey-indonesia-call-for-ceasefire-in-libya/433604
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13843798
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120316085435/http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=108593 to http://pakobserver.net/detailnews.asp?id=108593
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.flightglobal.com/articles/2011/03/23/354704/usmc-reveals-details-of-f-15e-pilot-rescue.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5h8d5ep2e9mHsPV2Tb537rf2CdsJA?docId=6680198
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-13858200
• Corrected formatting/usage for https://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gjq4WZw03V_fCs0F44efTYDXJwWg?docId=729f1c9498f142d783e7d216f8f05c37
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0%2C8599%2C2084681%2C00.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325121633/http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/Solidarity/Articles/InternationalS/2011/Cuba%20Condemned.html to http://www.cubaminrex.cu/English/Solidarity/Articles/InternationalS/2011/Cuba%20Condemned.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on 2011 military intervention in Libya. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://articles.cnn.com/2011-03-02/us/libya.military.options_1_gadhafi-government-arab-league-libyan-people?_s=PM%3AU.S.
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://forsvaret.no/operasjoner/operasjoner-i-utlandet/libya/Sider/Oppsummerte-fakta-om-bidraget.aspx
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110325235401/http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/qatari-warplanes-refuel-cyprus/20110323 to http://www.cyprus-mail.com/cyprus/qatari-warplanes-refuel-cyprus/20110323
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.irna.ir/ENNewsShow.aspx?NID=30422352&SRCH=1
• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5xsX2ZLd2?url=http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480 to http://www.cfr.org/libya/libya-responsibility-protect/p24480
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120525025917/http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/News-Briefs/Sandinistas-march-in-Nicaragua-s-capital-against-Libya-offensive_Thursday-March-24-2011 to http://www.ticotimes.net/Current-Edition/News-Briefs/Sandinistas-march-in-Nicaragua-s-capital-against-Libya-offensive_Thursday-March-24-2011
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130526014230/http://www.diis.dk/graphics/publications/policybriefs%202011/libya%20beyond%20regime%20change.web.pdf to http://www.diis.dk/graphics/publications/policybriefs%202011/libya%20beyond%20regime%20change.web.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:32, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Casualties

About the SAS casualties in the infobox, are the sources reliable? One references the British newspaper Daily Star, which is generally not a reliable source, while the other names a source that turned up nothing concrete in a web search. Shuipzv3 (talk) 14:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Removed. Shuipzv3 (talk) 15:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)

Notification of Discussion on Talk:War on terror

There is a discussion at Talk:War on terror#2011 war in Libya about whether the 2011 military intervention in Libya is part of the war on terror. Please join if you are interested. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 17:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

"Operation Freedom Falcon" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Operation Freedom Falcon. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 18#Operation Freedom Falcon until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:27, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

Correction on French Forces involved

I have suppressed the "2 C2- Greyhound" from the part presenting the French Forces involved. The French Air Force and the French Naval Aviation don't have any C2-greyhound on their inventory. This error is due to fact that is has been exchanges and replishnment by US C2 to the Charles De Gaulle Carrier, but their were US and belonged to US Naval aviation. You can check the inventory on the wikipedia dedicated to French armies. Please talk to me if necessary BihacVet — Preceding unsigned comment added by BihacVet (talk • contribs) 21:30, 19 February 2021 (UTC)

Total Sortie Responsibility 111%

'Eight NATO and two non-NATO countries flew strike sorties. Of these, Denmark, Canada, and Norway together were responsible for 31%,[280] the United States was responsible for 16%, Italy 10%, France 33%, Britain 21%, and Belgium, Qatar, and the UAE the remainder.[281]'

Neither of the links is available.

Martin Peter Clarke (talk) 07:47, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

Legal Justification of the Attack

There should be a section outlining the political battle that the Obama administration had with congress regarding the legitimacy of the attacks and whether or not there was legal precedent to go forward with it. The testimony by the Legal Advisor at the time is a good point to include, to understand the tension that existed during the time the decision was made. Amicuswiki07 (talk) 02:08, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

I am going to add the testimony that the Legal Advisor Harold Koh gave in front of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on June 28, 2011. This testimony was regarding the legality of the strikes and justification of the President's actions under the War Powers Act, which was crucial in getting Congress to pass the limited use of military force legislation. Amicuswiki07 (talk) 05:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Messy timeline

The timeline section is very messy, and doesnt really contain anything between march 2011 to october 2011, yet this is probably the most active part of the intervention. If its supposed to be about just the no-fly zone, it contains a lot of excess

Baboogie (talk) 00:23, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

There is no objective overview

Most of the article presents the operation as a success. Of course from a purely military point of view, it was a success - when a coalition of 14 rich countries (including the #1, #7 and #8 militarily most powerful in the world) wages war against a third-world country, the result is not going to be in any doubt. But the result has been a complete disaster and a human catastrophe; not just for Libya, but for much of North Africa and for much of Europe. The NATO attacks seem to have destroyed the civilian infrastructure, including water supplies needed for agriculture, resulting in a flood of desperate refugees that has been overwhelming the capacity - and willingness - of southern European countries to absorb them. The UN High Commission for Refugees currently (January 2022, eleven years after this "successful" military operation) estimates that there are over 800,000 people in Libya needing humanitarian assistance. (Before the war, the country was basically feeding its people.) Negative evaluations are presented as an afterthought in a section "Criticism", way down in the article after a page of pictures and statistical information by which time most casual readers will have decided they've read enough. Doesn't any Wikipedia editor think that the overall outcome of the operation ought to be front and centre? Sayitclearly (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that this article requires improvement; it was largely created based on 2011 news stories and hasn't really been reshaped since. However, it will be tricky. The resulting article needs to maintain NPOV, so reliable sources are required both for the points about damage and for the claims about the ongoing impact of that damage. It will be difficult to find sources that are able to separate the NATO intervention from the wider civil war and the second civil war (for example, clearly people were displaced by the NATO intervention, but the idea that it created the flood of refugees is wrong, since people were already talking about a refugee crisis at the beginning of March 2011, before the NATO intervention, with estimates of 300,000 Libran refugees at that time. After the intervention started it is clearly difficult to separate them - asking a refugee on 1 April whether they were fleeing the civil war or the NATO intervention wouldn't really have been a reasonable question). The article's current response to that difficulty seems to be focussing tightly on the military dimension, but, as you say, that is unsatisfactory.

In the end, I don't think wikipedia can offer an "objective overview," since one doesn't exist. The 'criticism' (or 'assessments') section is the right place for the main presentation of these issues, since there it is possible to present a range of assessments there. Currently, the 'criticism' section contains some discussion of these issues (but it is mostly a discussion of legality and far too Americo-centric). So, I think step one is to work out how to improve that (which would need to be done in a way that maintains links to First_Libyan_Civil_War#Impact. Then, the lead can include a paragraph that summarises those assessments.

Side-note: An article that has been almost totally neglected since about 2011 is Refugees of Libya, which deals only with the 2011 wave. Furius (talk) 11:47, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

References