US "Humanitarian Operations" in Libya Are Lethal

From the White House Report to Congress on Libya (PDF) dated June 15, 2011.

Where We Are Now

An international coalition of NATO and Arab allies continues to pursue the limited military mission to enforce U.N. Security Council Resolutions 1970 and 1973 and protect the Libyan people. At the onset of military operations, the United States leveraged its unique military capabilities to halt the regime’s offensive actions and degrade its air defense systems before turning over full command and control responsibility to a NATO-led coalition on March 31. Since that time:

• Three-quarters of the over 10,000 sorties flown in Libya have now been by non-U.S. coalition partners, a share that has increased over time.
• All 20 ships enforcing the arms embargo are European or Canadian.
• The overwhelming majority of strike sorties are now being flown by our European allies while American strikes are limited to the suppression of enemy air defense and occasional strikes by unmanned Predator UAVs against a specific set of targets, all within the UN authorization, in order to minimize collateral damage in urban areas.
• The United States provides nearly 70 percent of the coalition’s intelligence capabilities and a majority of its refueling assets, enabling coalition aircraft to stay in the air longer and undertake more strikes.

From Air Force Times dated June 30, 2011.

An Africa Command (AFRICOM) spokeswoman confirmed Wednesday that since NATO’s Operation Unified Protector (OUP) took over from the American-led Operation Odyssey Dawn on March 31, the U.S. military has flown hundreds of strike sorties. Previously, Washington had claimed that it was mostly providing intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and tanker support to NATO forces operating over Libya.

“U.S. aircraft continue to fly support [ISR and refueling] missions, as well as strike sorties under NATO tasking,” AFRICOM spokeswoman Nicole Dalrymple said in an emailed statement. “As of today, and since 31 March, the U.S. has flown a total of 3,475 sorties in support of OUP. Of those, 801 were strike sorties, 132 of which actually dropped ordnance.”

From NATO HQ Operational Media Update June 29, 2011.

Air Operations

Since the beginning of the NATO operation (31 March 2011, 08.00GMT) a total of 13,184 sorties, including 4,963 strike sorties*, have been conducted.
Sorties conducted 29 JUNE: 149
Strike sorties conducted 29 JUNE: 55
*Strike sorties are intended to identify and engage appropriate targets, but do not necessarily deploy munitions each time.

Basically we know that:

• The US has flown over 16% of all strike sorties since March 31, 2011.
• The US has flown over 26% of all total sorties since March 31, 2011.
• The share of sorties conducted by the United States has apparently increased since June 15, 2024 if the White House Report to Congress was accurate when it said "Three-quarters of the over 10,000 sorties flown in Libya have now been by non-U.S. coalition partners, a share that has increased over time."

My biggest problem with all of this is that the President is making the argument that when the United States launches 801 strike sorties against another nation - it is not war - it is simply a humanitarian operation. The Obama administration is establishing a very bad precedent here.

The revelation that the US has conducted 801 strike sorties since March 31, 2024 as part of what has been stressed - a limited role - raises doubts on the Presidents credibility. The President could legitimately be accused of fighting transparency of his Libyan policy with more vigor than he is fighting Gaddafi. It also raises a very serious question regarding what else is he hiding about US involvement in Libya? No troops? So the whole military doctrine regarding air traffic controllers and spotters for cruise missiles in a war zone was thrown out for the Libyan campaign? Sure it was.

What is particularly frustrating is that the President almost certainly could win the support of Congress for his Libyan campaign if he was trying. I am not sure what is gained from concealing important details like 800+ US strike sorties as part of our NATO operation contribution. All this talk of limited role towards supporting NATO allies sounds like bullshit when that actually means 132 air strikes with bombs delivered.

President Obama is currently fighting wars in Libya, Yemen, Pakistan, and Somalia primarily with airpower, and yet not a single credible American strategist would ever claim any of these wars can be won with airpower. Which of these air campaigns is the President being honest with the American people about? How do any of these air campaigns end well?